Jump to content

Texas Abortion ban comes into effect.


Recommended Posts

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-01/texas-law-banning-abortion-after-six-weeks-comes-into-effect/100426890

Abortion ban after 6 weeks

Ability to sue providers

And they're going after the morning after pill too just to make sure we women stop giving you blokes sex.<_<

Signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott in May and becoming law from September 1, it prohibits abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected — usually around six weeks — and before most women even know they are pregnant.

Thanks Trump.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 680
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

you want a compromise? ok.... lets do this.... if you have a vagina, you get to decide both what goes into it, and what comes out of it. if you dont have one, you dont. full stop.

After giving this a bit more thought, this is yet another confirmation of why I think many people identify with Trump. He's an asshole. I think there is a bit of an asshole component in all

the funniest part of this attack on women's rights is the fact that these Texan cunts are screaming, 'my body, my choice' at anti vax anti mask rallies.

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

Not on this deal. Bet Trump is all for abortions. This is Baptists and Catholics.

SCOTUS.

A Texas law banning most abortions in the state has taken effect, but the US Supreme Court has yet to act on an emergency appeal to put the law on hold.

 

If allowed to remain in force, the law would signal the most dramatic restriction on abortion rights in the United States since the high court's landmark Roe v Wade decision legalised abortion across the country in 1973. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sneaky approach to get around Roe V Wade

But among those restrictions, the Texas bill stands out for the novel approach it takes in curtailing the procedure.
 
Rather than imposing a criminal or regulatory punishment for those who conduct abortions after the point in the pregnancy, the state law created a so-called "private right of action" to enforce the restriction. Essentially, the legislature deputized private citizens to bring civil litigation -- with the threat of $10,000 or more in damages -- against providers or even anyone who helped a woman access an abortion after six weeks.
"The way the bill is structured incentivizes vigilante lawsuits that will harass abortion providers and those who support providing abortions in Texas," Adriana Piñon, an attorney at the Texas chapter of ACLU, told CNN.
The approach was aimed at insulating the law from the sort of federal legal challenges that would prevent it from going into effect. One such lawsuit -- brought by several clinics represented by the ACLU and other groups -- is now mired in a complicated procedural dispute that has prompted the clinics to ask for a Supreme Court intervention, which didn't come as of 1:30 a.m. ET Wednesday.
The upshot is that while the legal fight plays out, providers in Texas may have to decide whether they want to risk costly litigation brought by private plaintiffs who seek damages under the state law.
Anti-abortion activists are already preparing to bring lawsuits if clinics violate the six-week ban.
"This whole mechanism only works if there is a credible threat of lawsuits being brought against an industry if they decide to ignore the law," said John Seago, the legislative director for Texas Right to Life, which advocated prominently for the abortion ban. "So, we have been working to make sure that all those pieces are in place, that if we do have reports, that we do see evidence that they're violating the law, then we can actually enforce the law ourselves."
(After Seago spoke to CNN, a state court on Tuesday issued temporary orders blocking Seago and his organization from bringing a private enforcement action against two attorneys and an organization that assists women in accessing the procedure.)
Seago told CNN that the push for the law was motivated in party by a letter rolled out in October by a coalition of state and local prosecutors from across the country who vowed to not enforce anti-abortion laws, even if Roe was overturned.
Though previous proposals from the anti-abortion movement included civil liabilities, the Texas ban is unique in that it is structured entirely around that threat. How it expands who can sue under the measure -- "any person," besides a government official, according to the text -- is novel in the context of abortion as well, he said.
"One of the great benefits, and one of the things that's most exciting for the pro-life movement, is that they have a role in enforcing this law," Seago said.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the theoretical increase in births will offset the Covid deaths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

Not on this deal. Bet Trump is all for abortions. This is Baptists and Catholics.

Trump and the GOP are for anything that foments division and titilates the culture warriors . Moral compunction has nothing to do with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A rough example that I heard:  If you are an Uber driver in Texas, giving someone a ride to a clinic for abortion services, you can be sued by someone in Kansas.  And if the suit is successful, the guy in Kansas gets paid $10,000 by the State of Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

This is Baptists and Catholics.

That makes prefect sense Blue Crap but isn't Joe also a Catholic? :blink: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

A rough example that I heard:  If you are an Uber driver in Texas, giving someone a ride to a clinic for abortion services, you can be sued by someone in Kansas.  And if the suit is successful, the guy in Kansas gets paid $10,000 by the State of Texas.

Interesting way to redistribute money.......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Interesting way to redistribute money.......

 

It's a really creative end run.  It turns private citizens into enforcers and bounty hunters.  It's flat out weird.  And apparently there are provisions that allow frivolous suits. So, basically people can just randomly sue a clinic and effectively put an owner out of business just with the legal costs.

This is shit I heard in an interview NPR over the weekend while working on the boat, so no cites.

Look forward to our resident consul's legal take on this stuff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, basketcase said:

the funniest part of this attack on women's rights is the fact that these Texan cunts are screaming, 'my body, my choice' at anti vax anti mask rallies.

Apples and oranges, dipshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Venom said:

Apples and oranges, dipshit. 

tell that shit to a girl or woman wanting/needing an abortion you fkg imbecile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, basketcase said:

the funniest part of this attack on women's rights is the fact that these Texan cunts are screaming, 'my body, my choice' at anti vax anti mask rallies.

Yeah, "don't make my kid wear a mask while they do active shooter drills, because it's traumatic for them. Plus, the bulletproof backpacks are too heavy to carry while wearing a mask."

"my body my choice" turns into "your body, uber drivers choice"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Venom said:

Apples and oranges, dipshit. 

In a way, yes.

OK: Forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her attacker's child to term.

NOT OK: Having to put a piece of cloth on your face.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

A rough example that I heard:  If you are an Uber driver in Texas, giving someone a ride to a clinic for abortion services, you can be sued by someone in Kansas.  And if the suit is successful, the guy in Kansas gets paid $10,000 by the State of Texas.

Can non Texans be sued by Texans?

Can any facility releasing industrial effluent teratogens be sued?  Freight companies hauling teratogenic chemicals? People who won’t move away from facilities releasing teratogens?  People who move to he same  areas? Politicians who pass/ don’t pass laws and regulations that result in any abortions- laws
that that restrict access of poor pregnant women to adequate health care, proper nutrition, and rest? Companies that won’t provide such help?  Traffic accidents resulting in spontaneous abortions?  Spousal abuse?  I can see this might be a new source of revenue nationwide for plaintiff lawyers, (and environmental groups).  I can see the ads now….:lol:  Will the Texan court system be glutted with cases? A golden era of radical environmentalism, social welfare, and personal safety in Texas!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, benwynn said:

In a way, yes.

OK: Forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her attacker's child to term.

NOT OK: Having to put a piece of cloth on your face.

 

And a man has parental rights to the child, UNLESS he's actually convicted of the rape that caused that child.

Currently out of 1000 rapes, 7 are actually convicted.

"Based on correlating multiple data sources, RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) estimates that for every 1,000 rapes, 384 are reported to police, 57 result in an arrest, 11 are referred for prosecution, 7 result in a felony conviction, and 6 result in incarceration."

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mike G said:

And a man has parental rights to the child, UNLESS he's actually convicted of the rape that caused that child.

Currently out of 1000 rapes, 7 are actually convicted.

"Based on correlating multiple data sources, RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) estimates that for every 1,000 rapes, 384 are reported to police, 57 result in an arrest, 11 are referred for prosecution, 7 result in a felony conviction, and 6 result in incarceration."

Although it goes against what I believe in, 'free guns for women' in Texas sounds like a good program to get behind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a native of the state I have watched the creeping progression of a nutty minority gain control with this being their crowning achievement - snitch on your neighbors and friends and get an anonymous reward.

Forward! Into the Dark Ages.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, d&#x27;ranger said:

As a native of the state I have watched the creeping progression of a nutty minority gain control with this being their crowning achievement - snitch on your neighbors and friends and get an anonymous reward.

Forward! Into the Dark Ages.

Isn't that what the germans did in WWII and the communists strongly encourage?  Hard to tell them apart anymore.  (Texans or the commies or Nazis for that) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

They are the vanguard of the American Taliban. They need to be crushed.

I think the taliban is taking notes....Texans are giving them great ideas.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Venom said:

That makes prefect sense Blue Crap but isn't Joe also a Catholic? :blink: 

Yes sir. Probably not all the Baptists, either. I think the real deal is that joe follows existing laws. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if we could set up a gofundme for Texas women to transport them out of state and provide housing for them. 

Would be fun to see all the Texan men look around for dates and only see other dumbass dudes. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gptyk said:

Wonder if we could set up a gofundme for Texas women to transport them out of state and provide housing for them. 

Would be fun to see all the Texan men look around for dates and only see other dumbass dudes. 

 

That's assisting.  We could be sued for it under this legislation. 

Edited:  Never mind.  I thought you meant the ones looking for abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, benwynn said:

That's assisting.  We could be sued for it under this legislation. 

Edited:  Never mind.  I thought you meant the ones looking for abortions.

Well, since some percentage of them may be looking for an abortion you're quite correct anyway. 

 

Olsonist may be on to something. Rather than routinely lopping off baby boys' foreskins*, maybe a coupla tiny valves in the vas would be a better idea. Imagine a place where every kid was wanted. Planned. Where no 15yo kids ever got pregnant. 

 

* This comment is U.S. centric. The rest of the world doesn't have this level of barbarism. 'Cept maybe Israel. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Abbott have a daughter? If so, I think I'll accuse her of plotting to have an abortion, whether she's 7 or 37 matters not. Conspiracy to commit abortion sounds like a valid crime....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Mariachi said:

Texas is wierd. Came home afternoon after killing some doves and see I have a rare message on my landline in my shop. Played it back and it was from some credit card collection agency. Said I owed the Bank of Houston (or some such shit) five figures for a card I defaulted on. Last few seconds of the message was very amusing.....if I didn't come into the bank within 5 biz days to take care of it.....they would then have the Texas Rangers come to my home, place me under arrest and take me to jail and up before a judge. 

I've never had any financial dealings of any sort in Texas....and was living 1200 miles away in BFE Arizona at the time......:lol:

Was this today?

Probably a scam.  So you need to call them back.   Give them a bullshit name and other info.  At some point you will get to where they want money, ideally from a credit card.  At that point, you tell them you need to get your credit card.  Put the phone on the desk, and then just go do something else.    If you are really a sadist, pick up the phone after 5 min or so and tell them you just remembered where it is and you'll be right back.  Repeat every 5 minutes or so.

If you never pick the phone back up they will usually bail between 8 or 10 minutes or so.  But I once had a guy hang for 20 minutes.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Robert R e i c h

The U.S. Supreme Court won’t block a Texas law that allows private individuals to sue to enforce a ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy – before many women are even aware they’re pregnant. The law went into effect today.
It’s the most restrictive abortion law in the country, imposing a huge burden on women without the means or money to travel to another state where later abortions are legal.
It's also a sure sign that the Republican-appointed justices, who now hold six of nine seats on the Court, are ready to overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, striking down anti-abortion laws across the nation as violating a woman’s right to privacy under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court I had the honor of arguing cases before almost fifty years ago embodied the idea that the fundamental role of the Supreme Court is to balance the scales in favor of those who were powerless. The other two branches of government couldn’t be relied on to do that.
Even Nixon appointees Harry Blackman, Lewis Powell, and Warren Burger understood that role. Blackman wrote the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and Powell and Burger joined him, as did four Democratic appointees to the Court – William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart.
Today’s Supreme Court can't hold a candle to them. Five of today’s Supreme Court majority were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote; three of them by a president who instigated a coup against the United States.
The authority of the Supreme Court derives entirely from Americans’ confidence and trust in it. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers 78, the judiciary has “neither the sword” (the executive branch’s power to compel action) “or the purse” (the Congress’s power to appropriate funds).
The Court I was privileged to argue before almost fifty years ago had significant moral authority. It protected the less powerful with arguments that resonated with the core values of the nation. Americans didn’t always agree with its conclusions, but they respected it.
Today’s cruel and utterly partisan Supreme Court is imposing horrible burdens on those least able to bear them -- squandering what remains of its moral authority.
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

If a woman has to drive to another state to get an abortion, can one sue the owner of the gas station where she fueled her car for the trip?

What's really a shame is that this is a serious question.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, benwynn said:

If a woman has to drive to another state to get an abortion, can one sue the owner of the gas station where she fueled her car for the trip?

How about the car maker? They have lots of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, benwynn said:

Was this today?

Probably a scam.  So you need to call them back.   Give them a bullshit name and other info.  At some point you will get to where they want money, ideally from a credit card.  At that point, you tell them you need to get your credit card.  Put the phone on the desk, and then just go do something else.    If you are really a sadist, pick up the phone after 5 min or so and tell them you just remembered where it is and you'll be right back.  Repeat every 5 minutes or so.

If you never pick the phone back up they will usually bail between 8 or 10 minutes or so.  But I once had a guy hang for 20 minutes.  

I tell these people that they're calling on my business line, and to please call my personal phone @ (203) 453-8061...

(The non-emergency line for the Guilford, Ct. Police department.) They never call back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Venom said:

That makes prefect sense Blue Crap but isn't Joe also a Catholic? :blink: 

I was brought up Catholic. If you want to believe that a book written 2000 years ago when 90% of cunts couldn't even read is suitable for modern governance , you're a fucking idiot. If you think religion should be used for governance then you are no different to the Taliban wankers. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

I was brought up Catholic. If you want to believe that a book written 2000 years ago when 90% of cunts couldn't even read is suitable for modern governance , you're a fucking idiot. 

this

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Venom said:

Apples and oranges, dipshit. 

You may be right since the anti vaxers are likely cause a lot more deaths. Real living humans at that and not a bundle of cells. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pusslicker said:

You may be right since the anti vaxers are likely cause a lot more deaths. Real living humans at that and not a bundle of cells. 

Nah... He is just a dumb fuck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

I was brought up Catholic. If you want to believe that a book written 2000 years ago when 90% of cunts couldn't even read is suitable for modern governance , you're a fucking idiot. If you think religion should be used for governance then you are no different to the Taliban wankers. 

the bible is certainly useful for modern governance. ever been hit by one?

 

sticky tape the fucker closed and use it to "book/stone" the ignorant fuckers!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

An opinion piece in the Daily Beast slams Biden, and because of his silence on the subject, I agree. He needs to get on this fast. He should have forestalled it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-abandoned-texas-women-to-the-republican-agenda

What the fuck do you want him to do?  The POTUS neither makes laws nor rules on the.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Not on this deal. Bet Trump is all for abortions. 

Ludicrously wrong - that orange fascist picked his SCOTUS "justices" from right out of the dark nether regions of the Handmaid's Tale. 

(Thanks to sailing, I had lunch with Margaret Atwood once . . ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-declines-block-texas-abortion-ban-2021-09-02/

U.S. Supreme Court declines to block Texas abortion ban

WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court late on Wednesday refused to block a Texas ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, dealing a major blow to abortion rights and allowing a law prohibiting the vast majority of abortions in the state to remain in place.

The justices on a 5-4 vote denied an emergency request by abortion and women's health providers for an injunction barring enforcement of the ban, which went into effect early on Wednesday, while litigation continues in their lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

The decision saw one of the court's six conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined the three liberals in dissent.

....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, d&#x27;ranger said:

As a native of the state I have watched the creeping progression of a nutty minority gain control with this being their crowning achievement - snitch on your neighbors and friends and get an anonymous reward.

Forward! Into the Dark Ages.

Let’s invade the Geats!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

I was brought up Catholic. If you want to believe that a book written 2000 years ago when 90% of cunts couldn't even read is suitable for modern governance , you're a fucking idiot. If you think religion should be used for governance then you are no different to the Taliban wankers. 

No that's not my position. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

image.thumb.png.a7113fb016e6b3351ab27f41c1821a2d.png

But I think we can all be grateful that at least we didn't have Hillary. That would have been bad.

...:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

An opinion piece in the Daily Beast slams Biden, and because of his silence on the subject, I agree. He needs to get on this fast. He should have forestalled it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-abandoned-texas-women-to-the-republican-agenda

Not disagreeing, but what do you think Biden should have done or said that would have any effect on the SC? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Venom said:

No that's not my position. 

 

 

 

Hahahahaha!  So your backwards view of women and their rights and role in th world is from your own idiocy?  You RWNJ'S never cease to amaze in your stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Ludicrously wrong - that orange fascist picked his SCOTUS "justices" from right out of the dark nether regions of the Handmaid's Tale. 

(Thanks to sailing, I had lunch with Margaret Atwood once . . ) 

Again Ollie, you're not wrong just "less correct" as usual. They were handpicked for him. Nobody believes TFG was a bible reader. I meant as an individual, he was all for abortion and probably paid for several. He was Pro-choice earlier in his "career" until about 2012. "The statement is consistent with the position he took on the issue during his campaign. But it’s a giant shift from Trump’s thoughts on the issue for most of his adult life. In fact, it was only as he prepared a run for president that his views shifted from pro-choice to pro-life." https://qz.com/1623437/trump-shifted-from-pro-choice-to-pro-life-as-he-planned-a-presidential-run/

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Venom said:

No that's not my position. 

 

I agree that everybody is entitled to have their own beliefs.

Do you suggest belief should be a foundation of lawmaking, and if so which beliefs should be given prominence?

Catholic (liberal / conservative?), Baptist (the church on the left side of the street or the one on the right side)? Methodist? Islam? Teapot?

The only good that might come from this is roe v wade was something that neither the dems or the gop actually wanted overturned. The gop loved being able to say they wanted it overturned to appease the RWNJs, but didnt expect it to happen.

This will drive a big turnout of dems and women at voting time. With some luck this could actually drive the gop fuckers out.

It certainly motivates me to tell the fucking fuckers to fuck off. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

What the fuck do you want him to do?  The POTUS neither makes laws nor rules on the.

He could stand up and be counted. 

It's not as if it's exactly unpresidented for a President to opine from his pulpit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

I agree that everybody is entitled to have their own beliefs.

Do you suggest belief should be a foundation of lawmaking, and if so which beliefs should be given prominence?

Catholic (liberal / conservative?), Baptist (the church on the left side of the street or the one on the right side)? Methodist? Islam? Teapot?

The only good that might come from this is roe v wade was something that neither the dems or the gop actually wanted overturned. The gop loved being able to say they wanted it overturned to appease the RWNJs, but didnt expect it to happen.

This will drive a big turnout of dems and women at voting time. With some luck this could actually drive the gop fuckers out.

It certainly motivates me to tell the fucking fuckers to fuck off. 

From your mouth to God’s ears

Link to post
Share on other sites

An question. If Texas is using private citizens to enforce this piece of bastardry by mandating their ability to sue providers, procurers, and assistants.

Is this not setting some weird precedent by which  you or I could not sue a large organization (such as the right to life creeps) or any individual, including lawmakers for violating any law whether if effects us personally or not?

I'm sure many of those creeps beat their wives and kids, or so...we sue em.  and keep suing them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

I agree that everybody is entitled to have their own beliefs.

Do you suggest belief should be a foundation of lawmaking, and if so which beliefs should be given prominence?

Catholic (liberal / conservative?), Baptist (the church on the left side of the street or the one on the right side)? Methodist? Islam? Teapot?

The only good that might come from this is roe v wade was something that neither the dems or the gop actually wanted overturned. The gop loved being able to say they wanted it overturned to appease the RWNJs, but didnt expect it to happen.

This will drive a big turnout of dems and women at voting time. With some luck this could actually drive the gop fuckers out.

It certainly motivates me to tell the fucking fuckers to fuck off. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

An question. If Texas is using private citizens to enforce this piece of bastardry by mandating their ability to sue providers, procurers, and assistants.

Is this not setting some weird precedent by which  you or I could not sue a large organization (such as the right to life creeps) or any individual, including lawmakers for violating any law whether if effects us personally or not?

I'm sure many of those creeps beat their wives and kids, or so...we sue em.  and keep suing them.

Yes it is weird. There is no need to prove personal injury / damage to personally sue anyone or anything with this legislation.

Plus if you are successful the State of texas will pay you a finder's fee / bounty of 10k, for being such a zealot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dfw_sailor said:

Yes it is weird. There is no need to prove personal injury / damage to personally sue anyone or anything with this legislation.

Plus if you are successful the State of texas will pay you a finder's fee / bounty of 10k, for being such a zealot.

Uh huh, and when some random someone trys to sue some other random someone for breaking other laws, and cites this as a precedent and takes it to the courts, It's going to get interesting.

Given the USA's love affair with lawyers and suing anyone at the drop of a hat, It could reach farcical proportions very quickly.

With a little bit of naughty social media rabble rousing, imagination and creative thinking, it could even be used to undermine 2A. Now that would be amusing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the more serious side, you'll get disgruntled men threatening to sue anyone who "murders HIS child" or friends that try to help his partner in any way.

If you don't have to actually prove anything to make a credible legal threat, you're going to see abused pregnant women abandoned by any support they might have, simply by their abuser making accusations and legal threats to their friends.

This is ugly in more ways than one.

Welcome to Gilead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShortForBob said:

Uh huh, and when some random someone trys to sue some other random someone for breaking other laws, and cites this as a precedent and takes it to the courts, It's going to get interesting.

Given the USA's love affair with lawyers and suing anyone at the drop of a hat, It could reach farcical proportions very quickly.

With a little bit of naughty social media rabble rousing, imagination and creative thinking, it could even be used to undermine 2A. Now that would be amusing.

 

In a way, the SCOTUS could be playing this very smartly or dumbly depending on which side of the fence one sits.. As I understand this, they denied an injunction because no one has yet been affected by the new law. They will not consider the case until someone sues, and then review constitutionality.

S