Supreme Court and abortion

[Ken]

Whatever you think about this new law, the enforcement mechanism is problematic and will come back to haunt conservatives if it isn't thrown out as it should be. Under this law, absolutely anyone with no connection to the accused can go to court and sue for damages from anyone with any connection to an abortion.

Why is that problematic? For example, many states have an initiative and referendum process whereby voters can collect petitions, put a proposal on the ballot, and if approved by voters, it becomes law.

Imagine if animal rights activists in a state like Ohio manage to get a new animal rights farm law on the ballot with this same enforcement mechanism and it passes. They would be creating open season for any and all animal rights activists from anywhere in the country to descend on Ohio and crawl across the Ohio countryside with telephoto lenses and camera drones, looking for farmers who might have their hogs too confined, Amish dog breeders who are mistreating their dogs, chicken farmers who don't have free range chickens, etc. etc. Thousands of costly lawsuits are filed across the state and thousands of farmers are bankrupted just defending against endless lawsuits. And if they don't defend themselves they automatically loose and owe $10k plus attorney costs to any yahoo who decides to sue them. Not one Amish or Mennonite farm would be safe from lawsuit or bankruptcy.

Imagine similar enforcement mechanisms applied to worker safety violations, food safety violations in restaurants, maintenance of riparian buffer zones around farms, non-point source pollution from farms, etc. etc. etc. Environmental activists could basically wipe out the rural ag industry and do it through back-door initiative and referendum processes that bypass state legislatures and governors. And since it would all be self-enforcing by self-appointed vigilantes, there would be nothing the state could do to rein it in.

It might take a while to get there, but I don't see how the courts let this enforcement mechanism stand.

Then the courts need to let conventional enforcement mechanisms stand.

There aren't any. The Texas legislature tried to end-run around any judicial review of this new statute by only making it citizen-enforced with no role for the state. That way, in theory, no one can challenge the state in court since the state isn't doing any enforcing, only private citizens. In other words, you can't challenge the state in court for something it isn't actually doing.

They would have to go back and re-write the law to provide for conventional enforcement mechanisms through DAs and such.

[temporal1]

The editors of Commentary Magazine plus Matt Continetti have a very interesting and frank conversation about the history of abortion politics, its ebb and flow and shifting alliances, proponents and goalposts on their podcast today. I recommend it.

i’m about half thru. two points they touched on:
1. ultrasound ..
i definitely believe RvW deserves a revisit, based entirely on advances in medical science, including ultrasound and med photography.
altho all cultures and religions have recognized human babies result from conception/pregnancy, “advanced” civilizations demand scientific proof. so, for benefit of contemporary courts of law, it’s now available in real time photography, in “living” color.

2. Republicans chose prolife as a defining matter? .. hmm.
no one held a gun to the heads of obama/hillary as they openly announced abortion was an embedded policy of the DNC.
(that’s not to say “guns” of abortion lobbyists may have motivated them.) that could be reasonable speculation. it is speculation, so far as i’m aware. as they note in the commentary, this present “all in” defining DNC policy was not always so for Dems.

i’ll repeat, i believe “we the people” made a HORRIBLE turn when allowing politicians the freedom+ability to politicize EVERYTHING in our lives, including the most personal and intimate details. many matters should be “hands off” to politics, and kept as family and faith and moral matters.

but, for me, hearing obama+hillary speak on abortion as a DNC must-have was a decided DEAL BREAKER.
they freely chose to draw the line in the sand. they freely removed all doubt. decisions became much easier after.
politicians aren’t often so clear, preferring confusing fence riding. this is a memorable exception.

i plan to continue the tape this evening. thank you.

[nett]

Whatever you think about this new law, the enforcement mechanism is problematic and will come back to haunt conservatives if it isn't thrown out as it should be. Under this law, absolutely anyone with no connection to the accused can go to court and sue for damages from anyone with any connection to an abortion.

Why is that problematic? For example, many states have an initiative and referendum process whereby voters can collect petitions, put a proposal on the ballot, and if approved by voters, it becomes law.

Imagine if animal rights activists in a state like Ohio manage to get a new animal rights farm law on the ballot with this same enforcement mechanism and it passes. They would be creating open season for any and all animal rights activists from anywhere in the country to descend on Ohio and crawl across the Ohio countryside with telephoto lenses and camera drones, looking for farmers who might have their hogs too confined, Amish dog breeders who are mistreating their dogs, chicken farmers who don't have free range chickens, etc. etc. Thousands of costly lawsuits are filed across the state and thousands of farmers are bankrupted just defending against endless lawsuits. And if they don't defend themselves they automatically loose and owe $10k plus attorney costs to any yahoo who decides to sue them. Not one Amish or Mennonite farm would be safe from lawsuit or bankruptcy.

Imagine similar enforcement mechanisms applied to worker safety violations, food safety violations in restaurants, maintenance of riparian buffer zones around farms, non-point source pollution from farms, etc. etc. etc. Environmental activists could basically wipe out the rural ag industry and do it through back-door initiative and referendum processes that bypass state legislatures and governors. And since it would all be self-enforcing by self-appointed vigilantes, there would be nothing the state could do to rein it in.

It might take a while to get there, but I don't see how the courts let this enforcement mechanism stand.

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

[Soloist]

Whatever you think about this new law, the enforcement mechanism is problematic and will come back to haunt conservatives if it isn't thrown out as it should be. Under this law, absolutely anyone with no connection to the accused can go to court and sue for damages from anyone with any connection to an abortion.

Why is that problematic? For example, many states have an initiative and referendum process whereby voters can collect petitions, put a proposal on the ballot, and if approved by voters, it becomes law.

Imagine if animal rights activists in a state like Ohio manage to get a new animal rights farm law on the ballot with this same enforcement mechanism and it passes. They would be creating open season for any and all animal rights activists from anywhere in the country to descend on Ohio and crawl across the Ohio countryside with telephoto lenses and camera drones, looking for farmers who might have their hogs too confined, Amish dog breeders who are mistreating their dogs, chicken farmers who don't have free range chickens, etc. etc. Thousands of costly lawsuits are filed across the state and thousands of farmers are bankrupted just defending against endless lawsuits. And if they don't defend themselves they automatically loose and owe $10k plus attorney costs to any yahoo who decides to sue them. Not one Amish or Mennonite farm would be safe from lawsuit or bankruptcy.

Imagine similar enforcement mechanisms applied to worker safety violations, food safety violations in restaurants, maintenance of riparian buffer zones around farms, non-point source pollution from farms, etc. etc. etc. Environmental activists could basically wipe out the rural ag industry and do it through back-door initiative and referendum processes that bypass state legislatures and governors. And since it would all be self-enforcing by self-appointed vigilantes, there would be nothing the state could do to rein it in.

It might take a while to get there, but I don't see how the courts let this enforcement mechanism stand.

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

I'm certainly not fond of killing male chickens but I find it absolutely disgusting that some countries are banning the practice while you can still kill humans late term in these counties...

[temporal1]

nett:
You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

pace yourself. there is no bottom to the pit.

Soloist:
I'm certainly not fond of killing male chickens but I find it absolutely disgusting that some countries are banning the practice while you can still kill humans late term in these counties...

right now, like it or hate it, everybody’s children are being taught this is perfectly fine, normal+desirable. i kid you not.

i pray people AT LEAST stop voting for it. how much worse does it have to get?

[Ken]

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the enforcement mechanism in this law could just as easily be used by far-left activists to bypass GOP state legislatures and governors and implement their own agenda. If you don't see that as problematic then fine.

[Soloist]

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the enforcement mechanism in this law could just as easily be used by far-left activists to bypass GOP state legislatures and governors and implement their own agenda. If you don't see that as problematic then fine.

Personally, I find the way we factory farm pigs to be horrible... for a little while we refrained from buying pork but too many people misunderstood my reasoning.

[Josh]

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the enforcement mechanism in this law could just as easily be used by far-left activists to bypass GOP state legislatures and governors and implement their own agenda. If you don't see that as problematic then fine.

Personally, I find the way we factory farm pigs to be horrible... for a little while we refrained from buying pork but too many people misunderstood my reasoning.

It is horrible. Our modern society has a lack of respect for life, ranging from babies to farm animals to drug overdose victims (the people who killed hundreds of thousands with opioids just got off Scott free and got to keep their billions).

[Josh]

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the enforcement mechanism in this law could just as easily be used by far-left activists to bypass GOP state legislatures and governors and implement their own agenda. If you don't see that as problematic then fine.

Considering the far left can and does do stuff exactly like that, I don’t see what’s wrong with the right wing occasionally doing it for a good cause.

[Ken]

You just equated any kind of farming that Peta wouldn't approve of with abortion. Try again.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the enforcement mechanism in this law could just as easily be used by far-left activists to bypass GOP state legislatures and governors and implement their own agenda. If you don't see that as problematic then fine.

Considering the far left can and does do stuff exactly like that, I don’t see what’s wrong with the right wing occasionally doing it for a good cause.

My point is that if you legitimize the principal of citizen vigilantes taking anyone they want to into court despite having no connection, then you are opening up a can of worms that will reverberate much more severely on conservatives, agriculture, and small business than the other direction.

Which side of the political spectrum is more "busy body" and wants to regulate others more? You don't like things like gay activists suing wedding cake shops? That only happens now if a particular customer can claim that they were wronged and they are suing for personal damages. Under this new principal, anyone from anywhere in the US could sue the cake shop even if they were never a customer simply because they believed that the shop was acting "discriminatory". Instead of one lawsuit they might face 100 from people who never even set foot into their store. And if they don't defend against every single one of them they get $10,000 automatic judgments plus attorney costs filed against them. The lawsuits don't even have to be in good faith. They can be pure harassment. But if you don't defend against every one you are bankrupt.

Under this new law, liberal activists and hackers are already doing deep-dives into the background of anyone in the GOP legislature and conservative evangelical groups who have teenage daughters with the intent of filing harassment lawsuits against them if they ever do anything like go to Colorado for a ski vacation, or to Disneyland or New York on vacation. Claiming that they went there to have an abortion. Just to clog up the courts and make them hire lawyers to defend themselves and defame them in the news since it would all be public. How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that trip to Colorado didn't involve a stop off at an abortion clinic? How do you prevent someone from mail-ordering an abortion pill in your name from a pharmacy in California, having it sent to your house, and then suing you for an illegal abortion on the basis of the paper trail that they themselves created? If you are a state senator in Texas with a 16 year old daughter, how do you prevent someone from walking into an abortion clinic in New Mexico, giving them your daughter's name and address, creating a paper trail that she was there for an abortion, and then suing you for that abortion?

That is the can of worms that this new law opens up. I don't think they have any idea what they have started.