Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 05, 2021

Shortly after Texas adopted its extreme, unprecedented ban on abortion, Republican leaders in at least seven states states are looking into how they could follow its lead. Republican officials in Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and South Dakota have already suggested they're going to do what they can to copy the Texas legislation while Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Ohio are expected to do the same, according to the Washington Post.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Nazis are taking over all Republican controlled states. And yes, I understand they aren't wearing the Nazi arm bands yet....emphasis on yet! Do I honestly hate them, oh yes I do! And I do not exaggerate when I call them all Nazis.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-05 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" And I do not exaggerate when I call them all Nazis."

Unless you are really that ignorant of WW2 history, or can show us the extermination camps, the ambition to take over a continent or the world, the medical experiments on live humans, forced labor, concentration camps, genocide, plundering of private property, or wanton annihilation of cities, then yes, you are grossly exaggerating, Danni.

#2 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 12:07 PM | Reply

You think the Nazi were just as bad at the very start as they were at the end?

No. Fascism doesn't just happen instantly and all evil that develops over time is not presented at the beginning. Fascism, Nazism wouldn't get a chance that way. No, the way it happens is not in your face. It happens because good people don't call it what it is and speak up at the start. Then it builds, and then it's too late.

This is authoritarianism. This is the new American Taliban. Y'all Qaeda. Vanilla ISIS. This is the start of the control these control freaks have wanted for decades. Control over women. Control over history. Control over what's taught in schools, over Evolution, control over "those" people.

#3 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Unless you are really that ignorant of WW2 history, or can show us the extermination camps, the ambition to take over a continent or the world, the medical experiments on live humans, forced labor, concentration camps, genocide, plundering of private property, or wanton annihilation of cities, then yes, you are grossly exaggerating, Danni."

It does take a little time but anyone who wants to pit neighbors against neighbors, reporting intensely personal information about them, like seeking an abortion, is a Nazi and if anyone defends them then they are revealing their Nazi personalities. Jakester should just go get himself an armband and come of the clost. Jake is a Nazi.

"Stephen lynch - I think your a nazi"

www.youtube.com

#4 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-05 12:25 PM | Reply

Sorry, Danni. As a liberal, I do not believe in Nazism or armbands. That's a piss-poor response to try to mask your exaggeration.

#5 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 12:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

They say that love is blind then how is it that I have guessed
But then again I met you at the Wagner fest

I know you're a Nazi
And that's why I'm leaving
I know you're a Nazi
Sure as my name is Stephen
Lynch-berg-stein

Great link, Danni! LMAO!

#6 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 12:32 PM | Reply

"Sorry, Danni. As a liberal, I do not believe in Nazism or armbands."

You're a liberal? Riiiight!!!!! Ridiculous

YAV Stephen Lynch is so great, I actually saw him live a few years ago. Hilarious on so many topics.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-05 12:36 PM | Reply

Great voice, too. I love a good singer that you can understand all the words, is crisp and clear, and hits the notes solidly but effortlessly. Nice suprise for me. Thanks!

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 12:37 PM | Reply

You're a liberal? Riiiight!!!!! Ridiculous

Right? LMAO!

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 12:39 PM | Reply

"Unless you are really that ignorant of WW2 history, or can show us the extermination camps, the ambition to take over a continent or the world, the medical experiments on live humans, forced labor, concentration camps, genocide, plundering of private property, or wanton annihilation of cities, then yes, you are grossly exaggerating, Danni."

Aside from the extermination camps, all of those things are part of United States history.

The extermination of the Indians wasn't through camps. Rather, we simply slaughtered the Buffalo to bring about starvation. It's the "salt the earth" strategy, adapted to a hunter gatheter rather than an agrarian society.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 12:40 PM | Reply

Stephen Lynch: "Grandfather Die!"

www.google.com

#11 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-05 12:41 PM | Reply

"You're a liberal? Riiiight!!!!! Ridiculous"

Yes, I'm a classical liberal like our founding fathers were. I'm not a rabid progressive like you who calls themself a liberal. Our founding fathers would roll in their grave to see you call yourself one.

#12 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 12:42 PM | Reply

"Yes, I'm a classical liberal like our founding fathers were."

Now we're talking!

Slavery yes, women's suffrage no, voting only by land owners, and the Federal Senators are selected by each State's Assembly.

Perhaps most importantly, no Equal Protection clause.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Yes, I'm a classical liberal like our founding fathers were. "

Liberals who owned slaves, who impregnated them, etc. Sorry, but it's 2021, they would not be considered liberals today. More like Nazis. The only thing they did was reject the rule of the King, and why? They didn't like paying the taxes it cost to support the Brittish military which prevented other nations from occupying the Colonies. Those men were not liberals, just ask their wives who were considered chattel at the time, could not vote or own property. Yeah, you're a serious liberal with those concepts in mind.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-05 12:52 PM | Reply

"When I use 'liberal'," "Jakester" said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean"neither more nor less."

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 12:55 PM | Reply

So you think you're serious and you post satire to prove your point?

That guy is good, BTW.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 01:01 PM | Reply

"So you think you're serious and you post satire to prove your point?"

No, it doesn't prove my points but it is funny as hell.

I prove my own points or not depending on the readers POV.

Saying that the Texas abortion law is a Nazi law is my opinion but I know several other women who didn't already know my opinion that expressed the exact same thoughts. Getting neighbors to report neighbors, by allowing people who don't even know you to inform the authorities of your most personal and private medical procedures?

I honestly believe that is a good description of a Nazi.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-05 01:08 PM | Reply

You got anything to say about the article, Eberly? No? Let me: at least Kansas isn't in this group of crap states.

#18 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni, your gross overuse and misuse of the word Nazi pretty much negates anything you say. If you want to be taken seriously, post seriously.

#19 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 01:11 PM | Reply

#15 - the aforementioned obsession continues.

#20 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 01:12 PM | Reply

Getting neighbors to report neighbors, by allowing people who don't even know you to inform the authorities of your most personal and private medical procedures?

THIS.

Once this starts the GOP will do this for everything.

This isn't a mystery if you've studied history at all, or even just watched how authoritarianism rises in other countries. This shouldn't be surprising given the active White Nationalist and neo-Nazi presence in the United States.

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 01:14 PM | Reply

These "Wannabe New Nazi States" (WNNS) need to be slapped down fast and hard. This needs to be nipped NOW.

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21 Turn the people against each other.
Create an emergency only the power of the state is sufficient to crush.
The leader of the GOP quotes Mussolini and keeps a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed.

And we're scolded for calling GOP policies Nazi-like. By a "liberal."

---- outta here with that ----. Even Eberly can see through it.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Totalitarian government's start small. First you have to register your domicile and report your political opinions. Then laws are passed encouraging spying and informing on neighbors and aquaintances. Then strict orthodoxy of opinion is pushed by the media and deviations from orthodoxy are sanctioned increasingly severely.

This often progresses to endless wars abroad and harsh repression at home.

Danni is only mentioning the obvious. We are heading increasingly toward a totalitarian future.

Jakester, how is she wrong?

#24 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-05 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Maybe my white privilege makes me naive but are you guys saying you think people are going to report their neighbors to the authorities because they suspect they've had an abortion?

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 01:18 PM | Reply

Getting neighbors to report on neighbors

That's what the Taliban do.

I support pain compliance.

#26 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 01:19 PM | Reply

"We are heading increasingly toward a totalitarian future."

That's not what Danni said. She is saying certain people are Nazis.

"Jakester, how is she wrong?"

There are no extermination camps, the ambition to take over a continent or the world, the medical experiments on live humans, forced labor, concentration camps, genocide, plundering of private property, or wanton annihilation of cities.

I did see a picture of some guys wearing armbands once, however.

#27 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 01:24 PM | Reply

Perhaps I misunderstand history but I think people ratted on each other because they were afraid of what was gonna happen to them if they didn't.

I've just assumed that the $10,000 lawsuit thing was attached to the abortion bill in Texas to specifically be the enforcement mechanism of the bill. The only enforcement mechanism.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 01:25 PM | Reply

What do you want to bet that they primarily go after white women aborters.

Initially, when the law was passed the reason Reagan signed it into California law was that he assumed it would be primarily a minority thing. Them ------- breed like rabbits.

He didn't count on 40% of abortions being performed on white women.

Since whites are becoming the minority...

Also, I think anyone past the age of 50 should not be allowed to vote on reproductive rights.

#29 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-09-05 01:27 PM | Reply

Ebs, isn't that the intent of the law? To pit people against each other to increase the reach of government into personal life? The Stasi in East Germany did similar things. Most repressive regimes do. This is more than just an anti- abortion law, this is an experiment in vigilante governance, if it succeeds, more repression will follow. Count on it.

#30 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-05 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Maybe my white privilege makes me naive but are you guys saying you think people are going to report their neighbors to the authorities because they suspect they've had an abortion?

Absolutlely. I can point out the neighbors that will do it, too. I can give you their names.

Plus how we vote is at risk. I see that coming in the next election with what's going on here in the precincts. There's a campaign to get the 'volunteers' that handle the voting to be all Trump/GOP supporters to "prevent the election from being stolen like 2020 was." The new law lets them stand right next to you while you vote, or challenge you, or follow you around.

How would they know that I'd be worth the effort? Because when I walk in to the voting precinct, the first thing they ask is "party?" so I get the right ballot and they can verify me, along with my name and address. Then my photo-id card with address. So I'm identified as "the enemy" right from the start if the election workers are now Trump supporting GOPpers.

#31 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nobody should be able to vote on reproductive rights. It's nobodies business.

#32 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 01:31 PM | Reply

-Also, I think anyone past the age of 50 should not be allowed to vote on reproductive rights.

I'm 52. In my entire life, I've never met a woman that has told me she's had an abortion. I'm aware of 0 abortions with all the women I've ever known in my life.

We're talking 1,000+ women. Zero.

I attribute that to the reality that there are some secrets women can keep. How are people going to know or even suspect one of their neighbors has had this procedure? It's not like women go around blabbing this to others

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 01:34 PM | Reply

Not my experience, I know many women who blab up having had multiple abortions. You must run in extremely conservative circles fella.

#34 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-05 01:38 PM | Reply

34

I do but I thought abortions were nobody's business and liberals especially value privacy.

So why not keep it private if you value privacy?

Why the hell would anybody tell you that?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 01:41 PM | Reply

#34 - to be honest, I've never had a woman blab to me about having an abortion and I feel I get around pretty well.

Are you female, effeteposer? That could be why. I think women would be less likely to discuss their abortions with men than women.

#36 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 01:43 PM | Reply

How the hell do I know? I just know they have. Maybe I have a face that inspires confession. All I know is what I have experienced.

#37 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-05 01:44 PM | Reply

Crap, this is a good discussion but I have to run for a little bit ... .sorry.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 01:45 PM | Reply

#33 that's because they don't take it lightly. People talk like it's

"well time for my yearly abortion, la dee da"

You don't know because it's none of your business.

#39 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 01:46 PM | Reply

"Absolutlely. I can point out the neighbors that will do it, too. I can give you their names."

LOL...thanks comrade the party commends you for your loyalty.

Jk

#40 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-09-05 02:21 PM | Reply

This will NOT stop at abortion. There are many other 'social' issues which the Religious Right would like to 'resolve' in America and if someone doesn't put a stop to this now, it will just encourage them to try. Things like contraception, gay marriage, transgender rights, perhaps even divorce. And depending on how successful they are, they could even be emboldened enough to go after things like anti-miscegenation laws, integrated schools, voting rights, etc.

OCU

#41 | Posted by OCUser at 2021-09-05 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL...thanks comrade the party commends you for your loyalty.

You know nothing about my neighbors. They're the ones that sit in their driveway while we walk past them to go vote. They're the ones with huge Trump flags, or now an American flag lit up at night with way too many lumens. They're the family of 6 that have all had COVID, won't get vaccinated, and are extreme catholics. They're the ones that have no idea I'm a liberal because I'm white, tattooed, shaved headed, and they just open up and say all kinds of ---- to me.

These few have all made names for themselves in this neighborhood. We know that if it comes to this, they'll be the ones "reporting" on everyone else.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 02:48 PM | Reply

#41 - that is exactly right, OCU. This needs to be stopped NOW.

#43 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 02:48 PM | Reply

Jakester is a classic liberal like the founding fathers.

According to Jakester, Nazis have extermination camps, the ambition to take over a continent or the world, the medical experiments on live humans, forced labor, concentration camps, genocide, plundering of private property, or wanton annihilation of cities.

Founding fathers had extermination camps, the ambition to take over a continent or the world, the medical experiments on live humans, forced labor, concentration camps, genocide, plundering of private property, or wanton annihilation of cities.

Jakester admits he and the Founding fathers are Nazis.

#44 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-05 02:48 PM | Reply

"I'm 52. In my entire life, I've never met a woman that has told me she's had an abortion."

Have you likewise never met a man who told you his baby got aborted?

You're in the Forced Birth Party, why would a woman offer up that information to you? So you can scold and scorn her?

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 02:54 PM | Reply

"I'm 52. In my entire life, I've never met a woman that has told me she's had an abortion."

I am 43 and I've met several.

#46 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-These few have all made names for themselves in this neighborhood. We know that if it comes to this, they'll be the ones "reporting" on everyone else.

Ok. I have the picture of who you're describing

But they have to ... .

1. Know about an abortion
2. Suspect who the abortion provider is
2. Not be able to do it anonymously

How is that going to happen? I get their -------- and all but what would ever be their basis for it?

Again this is my assumption but I think the $10K was inserted to keep law enforcement out. This is the mechanism.

I'm sure we'll be seeing stories about these lawsuits soon enough so it'll be interesting to see if it results in payments.

Allowing these lawsuits violates the basic premise of a tort.

The plaintiff has to be injured by another party for a tort to exist.

Where is the injury? Nosy neighbor?

This is just nuts.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The plaintiff has to be injured by another party for a tort to exist.

I've been saying that IRL to family for days now.

How can you sue with no damages ? That's law 101 stuff. This isn't even close to constitutional, yet here we are 5-4 again.

I am ashamed of our supreme court.

#48 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 03:46 PM | Reply

I'm genuinely curious to see what et al, joe, or montecore have to say about this mess.

Any lawyers about?

#49 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 03:50 PM | Reply

Agreed on all that, Eberly and Alexandrite.

This was an enormous dereliction of duty on the part of those Supreme Court Five. The word is they wanted this to go through, and then when Mississippi comes up, they'll take it in a embryo heartbeat, even if it's nonviable, so they can play god and breathe life into it. All so these five can finally overturn Roe V Wade.

By the way, Texas "fetal heartbeat" law is not even accurate in its name. It isn't a fetus at 6 weeks.

#50 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 04:13 PM | Reply

""well time for my yearly abortion, la dee da"

That made me laugh.

#51 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 04:14 PM | Reply

there is no heart at 6 weeks.

#52 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 04:17 PM | Reply

Oops. I'm wrong on that one.

#53 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 04:18 PM | Reply

#53 it's some kind if pulse, there are no ventricles or anything that would be a heart by definition.

Anyway, hate abortion, don't have one. Otherwise STFU up.

#54 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 04:35 PM | Reply

Things like contraception, gay marriage, transgender rights, perhaps even divorce. And depending on how successful they are, they could even be emboldened enough to go after things like anti-miscegenation laws, integrated schools, voting rights, etc.
OCU

Perhaps everything on the list with the exception of divorce...they find it handy all too often.

#55 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-09-05 04:40 PM | Reply

C'mon Yav, it was a joke.
I have those folks all around me too. One even has a life size mannequin of Trump waving to those passing by surrounded by American flags.

#56 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-09-05 04:42 PM | Reply

"1. Know about an abortion"

They only have to suspect someone had an abortion.

Like when they suspected the black real estate agent was the homeless guy.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 04:47 PM | Reply

"The plaintiff has to be injured by another party for a tort to exist."

Not according to this law.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 04:48 PM | Reply

"This was an enormous dereliction of duty on the part of those Supreme Court Five."

You'll notice a trend that The Riiiight has been building towards:

We can't trust Congess to get anything done. (Democrats get credit for that too.)

We can't trust Elections to be fair.

We can't trust the Courts to deliver justice.

Only one man can fix this, and his name is President Donald J. TRUMP.

Sew how that works?

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 04:52 PM | Reply

"The plaintiff has to be injured by another party for a tort to exist."
Not according to this law.

#58 | POSTED BY SNOOFY A

That is the intent of the law, to be thrown out since third party plaintiffs will have no standing. Then they will apply said logic/precedence to planned parenthood.

#60 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-05 05:26 PM | Reply

I don't follow. The law explicity says you don't need to show you've been harmed by some stranger helping some other stranger get an abortion after six weeks.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 05:29 PM | Reply

Texas wrote the law such that it will inevitably be thrown out by the courts. It is unconstitutional on so many grounds, not the least of which is having private individuals enforce it-the vigilante aspect.

Once the courts get a hand on it, they will throw out the law saying that third parties do not have standing to sue. Several of the conservative SC justices have made that argument already if I am not mistaken. Which will then be applied to other lawsuits over abortion rights, you know, the one's filed by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Separately, the SC rejected review of this law because they argued that they cannot judge laws prior to implementation (which is ridiculous) as noone has been harmed yet. So apply that "logic" to PP or the ACLU suing over anti-abortion laws and you get lack of standing for 3rd parties.

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-05 05:36 PM | Reply

Boycott all Texas businesses

#63 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-05 05:43 PM | Reply

"inevitably"

They'll keep trying and trying and trying.

This is the first time in a long time, maybe ever, the Supreme Court has not issued injunctive relief for such an obvious violation of Roe.

So, the needle moves closer to re-addressing the issue that was supposed to be decided by Roe, and supposed to have been cemented by Casey.

Republicans are woman-hating scum. Every last one of them can go ---- themselves, but especially faux middle-of-the-roaders who have spent their adult years ignoring the bad apples that brought America to this crossroads. Everyone here knows at least one piece of ---- Republican like that, and some of you are piece of ---- Republicans like that.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 05:45 PM | Reply

#63 - Yeah, because boycotts work so well *snark* and almost always hurt people the SJWs think they're helping, like pregnant women who can't get an abortion and work at one of the places you want to boycott. Great idea.

Why do the virtue signaling SJWs who call for boycotts never have skin in the game?

#65 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 05:56 PM | Reply

-That is the intent of the law, to be thrown out since third party plaintiffs will have no standing.

That was my take.

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 06:00 PM | Reply

Holy ----. How many times has the energizer bunny (snoofy) posted here?

That worthless meaningless jobless ignored by all ------------ is absolutely OBSESSED with me.

I'm wondering if it's to the point where I should stay away from this place if he and speakstupid keep this up.

I seriously believe it's possible those 2 are conspiring to come find me.

Those 2 --------- ------- hate me that much

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 06:07 PM | Reply

I was curious so I logged out.

To find this ... ...

"Republicans are woman-hating scum. Every last one of them can go ---- themselves, but especially faux middle-of-the-roaders who have spent their adult years ignoring the bad apples that brought America to this crossroads. Everyone here knows at least one piece of ---- Republican like that, and some of you are piece of ---- Republicans like that."

That is directly squared at me.

Snoofy ... ..you can go ---- your self as well.

Which is probably the only sex you get anyway ... ... .

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 06:13 PM | Reply

"That is directly squared at me."

Not just at you, Eberly.

Millions of opportunistic complacent sycophants just like you. Susan Collins deserves a million times more blame than you do. But, you've been one of the GOP's sniveling little Brownshirts nonetheless.

So here's what happens next:

You know you were wrong about Roe being safe. You know it. And it bothers you. The blinders are starting to slip. Have been for some time, actually based on your votes for President in 2016 and 2020.

You can man up, or you can let your pride stop you cold in your tracks.

You're now faced with the terrifying, humiliating specter of Snoofy being right about something on the Internet.

Is that pain really worth something a lot more more trivial to you -- namely, protecting a woman's right to abortion?

I don't think you'll get a better chance to pick a side in our lifetimes. Don't make a snap judgment. Maybe talk it over with your priest and your family first.

I'll keep your name out of my mouth while you mull it over. Good luck.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Those 2 --------- ------- hate me that much"

It's not you. It's what you represent.
Meditate on that too. Now I really will get out of your hair.

"The light bulb has to want to change" as the saying goes.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I seriously believe it's possible those 2 are conspiring to come find me.

Yeah OK

#71 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 07:11 PM | Reply

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

71

I know. They would be dangerous if not for the fact they are both massively lazy bums.
They wish they had the energy to come get me.

And the balls. They have neither.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 07:59 PM | Reply

Snoofystupid types so furiously in response to me we should find a way to generate energy from it.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 08:01 PM | Reply

Those are some disturbing violent fantasies. I have no desire to see anyone harmed. It's just like Penn Jillette said about rape: I rape as much as I want to, which is none.

That being said, if I did rape someone, I would do it in Texas. That way, if they got pregnant and got an abortion after six weeks, that would be an easy way to me to make $10,000. That's what Republicans call a win-win.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 08:07 PM | Reply

Be nice to snoofy. He got the ---- kicked out of him this weekend.

So funny that he denied he trolls and never twists words or puts words into people's mouths. I just looked at a couple of his posts and saw him doing that. The funny part? On one of the posts denying he put words into anyone's mouth, guess what he did in that very same post. He put words into my mouth. Classic.

#76 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 08:10 PM | Reply

-He got the ---- kicked out of him this weekend.

He likes it.

It's attention all the same. All he wants is attention

Attention. Be it negative or positive. It doesn't really matter.

The lefties can't stand him. They know he's a complete POS. Look at how little they engage him. This would be why he trolls for attention.

I'd say it's sad but nobody is sad for snoofystupid.

#77 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 08:21 PM | Reply

eberly speaks for all lefties now.

#78 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-05 08:40 PM | Reply

78 - Maybe Eberly thought you guys were smart enough to see through Snoofy's -------- and honest enough to shun him for his blatant trolling and lying since you won't speak out against one of your own.

#79 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-05 08:54 PM | Reply

They speak out plenty.
Here's a small sample:

The GOP is a death cult.
POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-09-03 12:02 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 5

Some people can complicate even the simplest things. Often on purpose. It's just another way to be a doubting Thomas.
POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-09-05 08:58 AM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 3

This reminds me of the comment I've seen recently:
Most people don't quit their job. They quit their boss.
POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-09-04 02:02 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 3

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 09:00 PM | Reply

^
Eberly knows everything
And jakester communes with the founders

It's just like old times!

#81 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-05 09:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

78

I didn't say "all"

But I should have. Because it's true

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:03 PM | Reply

Same thing with the drunken savage.

Lefties can't can't that ------- ---- for brains either

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:05 PM | Reply

^
As if I care

#84 | Posted by Chieftutmoses at 2021-09-05 09:07 PM | Reply

Snoofysmalley ... .

www.google.com

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:08 PM | Reply

Eberlys NPD aside.
I saw this pairing of intellect coming weeks ago

One is as we know 100% right 100% of the time
The other an economics major and constitutional expert who personally knew the founders

Both sharing this great wealth of knowledge, anonymously and in obscurity

You would think they would put this apparent talent to good use, but no, they choose to put it to use here, cause you know, everybody doesn't like us

#86 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-05 09:16 PM | Reply

Ebs, isn't that the intent of the law? To pit people against each other to increase the reach of government into personal life?

You people are nuts.

The primary intent of the law is to functionally end abortion in this state. To that end it's a success, so far. All abortion providers in the state have said they will comply with the law. Only a small number of abortions can be legally performed.

Second, put an end to courts entering injunctions against enforcement of the law. To that end it's a success, so far. Court's do not, repeat, do not enjoin "laws," they enjoin people enforcing laws. That was the problem in the Supreme Court the other day. There was no clear evidence that the defendant district court judge and court clerk would attempt to enforce the law and the only private defendant, who could potentially enforce the law, signed an affidavit stating he had no intent to do so. So, who was the court suppose to enjoin?

Eventually, a case will come up where that court will have to address the "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue." My guess, the law will be held unconstitutional because it effectively ends abortion in this state.

#87 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 09:20 PM | Reply

-One is as we know 100% right 100% of the time
The other an economics major and constitutional expert who personally knew the founders

Which one is me?

And regardless, nobody is right as much as mathforth.

He's a smart fella so is Tony Roma. And some others.

If I thought everyone here was brain dead I would post here at all

#88 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:21 PM | Reply

87

Easy there. Don't go intimidating the drunken savage with your facts and professional knowledge.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:25 PM | Reply

"All abortion providers in the state have said they will comply with the law."

Okay.

"Court's do not, repeat, do not enjoin "laws," they enjoin people enforcing laws."

So the abortion providers are enforcing the law... on themselves?

#90 | Posted by Snoofy at 2021-09-05 09:27 PM | Reply

^
But yet you do

You post your assertions, then later deny making any assertion that was wrong

You are a textbook clinical example of a narcissist

That's why you post here. And that's why most here box your ears in return

#91 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-05 09:30 PM | Reply

The savage ... ..trying to converse.

Good for you, little fella.

What can I do for you?

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:36 PM | Reply

So the abortion providers are enforcing the law... on themselves?

No, pos troll, they are doing what most people do with laws they don't like, comply with the law until they can find a way around it and they will, eventually. Who knows there might even be an "Estelle Griswold" residing here.

#93 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 09:42 PM | Reply

So the abortion providers are enforcing the law... on themselves?

No, pos troll, they are doing what most people do with laws they don't like, comply with the law until they can find a way around it and they will, eventually. Who knows there might even be an "Estelle Griswold" residing here.

#94 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 09:42 PM | Reply

So the abortion providers are enforcing the law... on themselves?

Obviously not. The law is written to be "enforced" by someone in the public who will bring charges against individuals allegedly in violation of the law. What I think et._al. is saying that as written, the law does not charge either the police or prosecutors with enforcement, only the general public. And since no cases as yet have been filed under the law, there is no one - neither individuals or any group entity - to enjoin for the law's potential enforcement.

At least that's what I glean from his remarks.

#95 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-05 09:43 PM | Reply

The primary intent of the law is to functionally end abortion in this state.

Control people and prevent them from doing what they feel like is necessary.

This is a disgusting overreach by the government to control people's lives.

It's authoritarian and the antithesis to living in a free nation.

Republicans are fascists. Look at their actions. It's all intended to take away freedoms and put restrictions on personal liberties.

#96 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-05 09:43 PM | Reply

Well you could put down the crystal pipe and take a breather

#97 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 09:45 PM | Reply

Gee, when I take the law into my own hands they call me a vigilante. Even though they offer a $10,000 bounty.

Land of the free and the ------.

#98 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 09:51 PM | Reply

97 was for eberly

#99 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-05 09:51 PM | Reply

"No, pos troll,"

"Obviously not."

Any attention. It doesn't matter what kind.

He loves ANY attention.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 09:52 PM | Reply

Personally, on this topic I think et._al. is likely right (if I interpret him correctly). When the dust settles on this law, the GOP is going to be greatly disappointed when brought a case(s) with standing, both appellate judges and courts will ultimately strike it down with righteous fury. And all the states hurriedly trying to pass their own versions will yet again draw the ire of the anti-abortion advocates for leading them down another rabbit hole.

#101 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-05 09:54 PM | Reply

"No, pos troll, they are doing what most people do with laws they don't like, comply with the law"

Well obviously they are complying with the law. They've said as much.

But, what's making them comply? Surely that backstop of authority could have been enjoined from enforcing said law.

As you said, "Court's do not, repeat, do not enjoin "laws," they enjoin people enforcing laws."

Why not simply enjoin the people tasked with enforcing this one?

What makes this different than any number of (anti-abortion or other) laws which have been enjoined before being enforced?

I am not asking you to defend the Supreme Court's reasoning. Just explain it. I hope that's clear.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 09:57 PM | Reply

#95

Yep, pretty much, at least for now.

#96

The irrational ranting of another troll. Like I said, you people are nucking futs.

#103 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 09:57 PM | Reply

"And since no cases as yet have been filed under the law, there is no one - neither individuals or any group entity - to enjoin for the law's potential enforcement."

That seems like the kind of distinction without a difference only an anti-abortion zealot could hang their hat on.

But I'm willing to be wrong, if all the other anti-abortion laws weren't enjoined until the state tried to enforce them. I'm also willing to be surprised at my own ignorance, if that is indeed true.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 10:00 PM | Reply

The irrational ranting of another troll. Like I said, you people are nucking futs.

You are seriously saying that this abomination of "law" and this incredible infringment of rights guaranteed by decades of law aren't what Clowshack said?

What part is wrong?

The primary intent of the law is to functionally end abortion in this state.
That's true.

Control people and prevent them from doing what they feel like is necessary.
It sure as hell does that.

This is a disgusting overreach by the government to control people's lives.
Absolutely does this and is disgusting and is an overreach.

It's authoritarian and the antithesis to living in a free nation.
Plus it's apparently illegal, since it infringes on an established right to the point of making abortion impossible to get in the state of Texas. It is ridiculously authoritarian and it is the antithesis of freedom.

Republicans are fascists. Look at their actions. It's all intended to take away freedoms and put restrictions on personal liberties.
If it looks, walks, and sounds like a duck...
Is that the part that pissed you off?

#105 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 10:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The irrational ranting of another troll. Like I said, you people are nucking futs.
#103 | POSTED BY ET_AL

What in my post #96 was irrational or trolling?

#106 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-05 10:22 PM | Reply

Clarifying the quotation:
"It is ridiculously authoritarian and it is the antithesis of freedom.

Republicans are fascists. Look at their actions. It's all intended to take away freedoms and put restrictions on personal liberties.
If it looks, walks, and sounds like a duck...
Is that the part that pissed you off?"

#107 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 10:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What in my post #96 was irrational or trolling?

I'd like to know, too. Clearly it wasn't trolling. At all.
It also was largely factual.

#108 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 10:24 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure it's that I struck out part of his statement that triggered him.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-05 10:30 PM | Reply

109

He's triggered?

Not you?

Come on. I'm not arguing with your post but don't rage post after post and call someone else triggered.

#110 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 10:45 PM | Reply

He definitely was triggered.

#111 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 10:48 PM | Reply

Why not simply enjoin the people tasked with enforcing this one?

How about those persons being before the court. Under this law, that's everybody living in the state. In the SC the other day there was one such person before the court who swore he had no intent to sue under the law. Thus, there was no one to enjoin. Even if he intended to sue, he's only one person to be enjoined. There still would be millions of others not enjoined.

That case now goes back to the district court. I've read there is a class certification motion pending but have seen no details. If a class of defendants with enforcement power can be found then they can be sued and possibly enjoined. Finding that class may be difficult because it can't be the whole of the residents because some would sue to enforce while others wouldn't.

Perhaps the solution is some provider and their patient step up and openly violate the law. See the Estelle Griswold reference above. At least, then the merits of the law would be squarely before the court with no quirky procedural issues but an injunction would not.

#112 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 10:50 PM | Reply

Yeah ... ..he's really really really ... ..uh ... .triggered.

#113 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 10:54 PM | Reply

#112 - that was well stated, however an established legal right has been taken away from every woman in Texas. Now you're advocating a "test case" - a sacrifice - though every legal mind I know that has discussed this knows this law won't stand. But here we are with it on the books and the ramifications are staggering.

#114 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-05 10:55 PM | Reply

"Perhaps the solution is some provider and their patient step up and openly violate the law."

Like a patient who comes in 12 weeks along, brings the fee for an abortion + $10K. Has the procedure ... .let's it be known wait for someone to sue for the $10K and take it from there?

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 11:02 PM | Reply

The GOP party of control freaks,
that want to legislate everything
from acceptable religions, to who gets to
appoint judges, to acceptable book lists,
to how to slice up the nation and the states, to best limit the rights of women and minorities, to when even life begins, is getting their Control Freak Freak On...

And while I wont go on a Nazi Accusation Tour
like Danni, I will say that I am thoroughly
disgusted by what Rightwing America has done to my country in my lifetime. You have made it your duty to combat many of the things I love most about this country, freedom of speech, the right to peaceful protests, multiculturalism, with every ethnicity having something to contribute. Freedoms like being able to walk down a street or into a store without having to worry what nut two isles over has a gun or an AR-15 strapped to his waist or his back. Like watching a nation that with the 50's and the 60's become a nation that embraced science, to one that has grown so fearful of science, that it fears a half-inch long needle for a Covid shot. I remember a nation that used to (I still remember Walter Cronkite and John Chancelor) just read the evening news, giving 'just the facts'. There were no Faux Nees outlets with their fake outrage at everything 'the other side' believes in, going on and on ad nauseum for like 3 hours a night. We once were a nation of Americans Dammit! But I sure as hell can't say we are unified now! Hell, you just stormed the Caital of this country, and tried to overthow its legitimately elected government! I'm sorry GOP, but you have proceeded to ruin much of what I loved in this county, and if THAT is the price of your slash and burn victory, then that victory comes at too high a price for many in this country to bear. Authoritarian rule is always an unhappy, fearful form of rule, that always ends up in tragedy. Sad to say, but if this crap continues leading up to my retirement in 8 years, I will likely leave this once fine country, just to be rid of the stress and headache of living here. I sure as hell dont want to deal with all this crap in my retirement, when I am supposed to be relaxing!

#116 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-09-05 11:02 PM | Reply

"How about those persons being before the court. Under this law, that's everybody living in the state."

Subpoena them. If they don't show the case can be adjudicated in their absence, no?

But I don't really believe people are the enforcement agency.

They are informants. They submit their tips to a website run by the state, who then sends their badged goons. And someone has to compel payment of the $10k bounty; that too I would imagine to be some state officer.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 11:02 PM | Reply

Like a patient who comes in 12 weeks along, brings the fee for an abortion + $10K. Has the procedure ... .let's it be known wait for someone to sue for the $10K and take it from there?

The patient is not at risk of being sued. The law is directed at providers and those who assist.

#118 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 11:15 PM | Reply

I know. I was just suggesting the patient just give the $10K to make it easy for the provider to go through with it.

#119 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-05 11:18 PM | Reply

... however an established legal right has been taken away from every woman in Texas.

I agree, unequivocally.

Now you're advocating a "test case" - a sacrifice - though every legal mind I know that has discussed this knows this law won't stand.

Why not? It's not without precedent. Some how or another the merits of this law must be brought before the court. A test case will directly achieve that result. If, as and when it is, I believe, like many others, the law will be overturned. There's even a slight hint the SC agrees in their per curium opinion the other day. Thus the "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue" reference above.

#120 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 11:26 PM | Reply

... however an established legal right has been taken away from every woman in Texas.

I agree, unequivocally.

Now you're advocating a "test case" - a sacrifice - though every legal mind I know that has discussed this knows this law won't stand.

Why not? It's not without precedent. Some how or another the merits of this law must be brought before the court. A test case will directly achieve that result. If, as and when it is, I believe, like many others, the law will be overturned. There's even a slight hint the SC agrees in their per curium opinion the other day. Thus the "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue" reference above.

#121 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 11:26 PM | Reply

YAV

True, but it keeps the religious radicals hopes alive. How many years and how many Republicans have been promising to get rid of Roe? And how much money has found its way into Republican coffers over all those years ~ with nary bang for their buck?

I don't even see this vigilante/bounty hunter case in Texas as a test case. I see it as a pacifier ~ a bone, so to speak ~ that Abbott is throwing out there to pay for wherever his political ambitions take him in 2024. Trampling on women's' rights is just one of those many, many justifiable consequences that Republicans have been using to sucker donations for years.

IMO, this isn't about Roe ~ it's about a con job to keep that money flowing in.

Whatever plans Greg Abbott has for his political future in 2024 ain't gonna' be cheap.

#122 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-09-05 11:41 PM | Reply

He's triggered?
Not you?
#110 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You seem thirsty for my -------.

You want all of it?

Or just the tip?

#123 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-05 11:43 PM | Reply

"Why not?"

Because Roe protects abortion in the first trimester.

The test will surely fail. What is the point of such a test, other than to overturn Roe?

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-05 11:46 PM | Reply

Subpoena them. If they don't show the case can be adjudicated in their absence, no?

But another example of a little bit of legal knowledge being worth what was paid for it. Nothing.

A subpoena is issued for the production of evidence at a given time and place. The risk of non-compliance is civil contempt, no more no less. To achieve what you suggest they must be sued.

But I don't really believe people are the enforcement agency.

Then sit down and shut up because you haven't a clue about the statute.

They are informants. They submit their tips to a website run by the state, who then sends their badged goons.

Yep, no clue about the statute. Btw, the website is set up and run by a private entity that has nothing to do with the state.

And someone has to compel payment of the $10k bounty; that too I would imagine to be some state officer.

Yep, that would be a judge with jurisdiction to grant a judgment for that amount. Typically, collection would be through a writ of execution, that is served by a sheriff or constable not the judge. In the SC the other day their was one such judge and no clear evidence the judge intended to "enforce" the law. What about the hundreds of other such judges.

The class certification I referred to above may include a class of judges. Without seeing the motion, I'm not impressed with the idea. Judges don't enforce laws, they adjudicate rights under laws. Such adjudication could be that no rights were violated the the plaintiff's case is dismissed. That ain't "enforcing" the law.

#125 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-05 11:54 PM | Reply

#123 - WOW. What an utterly absurd interpretation of "triggered". It make me think you actually want to engage in such an act, clownshack. Why else would you say something like that?

#126 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-06 12:00 AM | Reply

123

I'm thinking. You gave me options

#127 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-06 12:03 AM | Reply

#125 et al

Well as a layman I didn't really understand most of that but I summed up your post as " nothing to see here folks, move along"

Is that correct?

#128 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:06 AM | Reply

"A subpoena is issued for the production of evidence at a given time and place."

Nonetheless, people get subpoenad all the time.

"Btw, the website is set up and run by a private entity that has nothing to do with the state."

So this law is creating a government regulated market?

I don't think it has nothing to do with the state. It feeds information to some state jurisdiction and some judges or sheriffs.

"But I don't really believe people are the enforcement agency."
"Then sit down and shut up because you haven't a clue about the statute."

That doesn't really explain how people are the enforcers. What are they even enforcing? Are they enforcing the state to pay bounties, is that how it works? That I could see.

Thanks for your explanations and especially the sourpuss attitude.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:10 AM | Reply

"Some how or another the merits of this law must be brought before the court."

They'll just keep voting 5-4 not to bring the merits before the court?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:11 AM | Reply

Because Roe protects abortion in the first trimester.

At this time, not in Texas, at least after the point in time that "a cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac" is detectable.

The test will surely fail. What is the point of such a test, other than to overturn Roe?

What's the point? To get the merits of this law before a court. Do you see another way? I don't at this time.

If, as many believe, the law is clearly unconstitutional then why not? As I've said before, I don't see the SC outright overruling Roe or Casey. They may nibble around the margins but wholesale overruling, no. The risk of social and political upheaval is too great I think for even the conservative justices, excluding Thomas.

#131 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 12:17 AM | Reply

#128 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ

Tell me what you don't understand and I'll try to clarify. I explain stuff like that to laymen all the time. They're called clients. Maybe #131 will help you with what I'm driving at.

#132 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 12:23 AM | Reply

"As I've said before, I don't see the SC outright overruling Roe or Casey."

There's no need, when they outright ignored a Texas law that effectively abrogates them.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:29 AM | Reply

"Because Roe protects abortion in the first trimester."

"At this time, not in Texas"

If not in Texas, then not anywhere. This isn't a split circuit.

At this time, Roe is effectively overturned.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:31 AM | Reply

"The risk of social and political upheaval is too great I think for even the conservative justices, excluding Thomas."

I've heard that before.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:32 AM | Reply

#129 | Posted by snoofy

Against my better judgment, I indulged you for a while because you brought up pertinent points.

You've now devolved into you usual persona, pos troll. So, you're back on ignore.

I thought you had a rudimentary understanding of what this law says and does. Clearly you don't. Read the d**n statute.

#136 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 12:40 AM | Reply

Ok et al what I couldn't understand and still don't from your lawyer babble is

Are you for it or agin it

#137 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:53 AM | Reply

"Are you for it or agin it"

He doesn't answer those kinds of questions. That's not a legal question.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:55 AM | Reply

Snoofy,

The law as written only has civil penalties (ie. money) attached to it. There are no criminal sanctions in the law whatsoever, so when you ask who enforces the law, the answer is the person(s) making a claim against providers that they violated the law by providing a person with an abortion of a fetus older than 6 weeks. At present, Texas abortion providers are scared into not performing abortions for women unless they can document that their fetus has gestated less than 6 weeks - which is damn near impossible outside of extraordinary circumstances. So to protect themselves and their finances abortion practices appear to be on hold until further court action can occur.

With criminal laws and statutes, the police and prosecutors are the entities who "enforce" them. The way this law was written, anyone in the entire public who has knowledge of an abortion in Texas outside of the dictates of the law can sue those involved for a minimum of $10,000. Those being sued are never jailed because this isn't a criminal sanction, it's a civil one. No police or prosecutors acting in their professional capacities will be involved in the trials either. The accused will be served papers showing that they are being sued and that doesn't have to be done by a LEO, just a process server.

I know it's abhorrent - and all of us agree the law is blatantly unconstitutional - but the law was intentionally written to cause exactly what we're seeing right now: The legal inability of appellate courts to enjoin enforcing parties because as yet there are no enforcing parties! Until someone files to sue an individual, there is no one on record as being someone who'll "enforce" the law. As et_al stated, there will likely be attempts to bring people before the court willing to admit they intend to (or have filed to) enforce the law, and at that point the courts can involve themselves in the issue.

#139 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 01:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#137 | Posted by bruceaz

Agin it.

#140 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 01:06 AM | Reply

Et_al has been clear: He's against the law without caveat. I don't think anyone here has defended the law. Et_al's gripe is that others do not understand the law and why things are as they are right now. It's not about liking or disliking the law or being pro or anti-abortion. It's all about the way the law was structured and how it took the usual arms of law enforcement out of the loop, instead empowering regular citizens to "enforce" the law by suing providers for money in civil courts, not sending them to jail in criminal courts.

This law will not stand for long because it's patently unconstitutional to almost every legal precedence held sacred in the law. However, the clever way the law was written gives it temporary cover from appellate courts for the reasons I tried to lay-explain above and in my prior posts.

#141 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 01:09 AM | Reply

#139 Who enforces the tort, then.

I just have to laugh because Texas has tort reform too.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:11 AM | Reply

Keep in mind also that:

"Pregnancy is counted from the first day of the woman's last period, not the date of conception which generally occurs two weeks later."

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au

So when a woman is 6 weeks pregnant, the embryo is actually only 4 weeks old.

#143 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-06 01:13 AM | Reply

Who enforces the tort, then.

The one who sues Snoofy. As yet, no one has been sued, so there is no enforcement.

Now if you reducing this down to why should a defendant show up in court if the police will not compel them to the words summary judgment comes into play. Of course, after any judgment against the defendant is handed down the usual legal system goes into play as it regards making sure the judgment gets paid.

But again, that is only enforcing the award granted by the trial's judgment, not for violating the law itself.

#144 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 01:17 AM | Reply

#140 thank you ;^)

#145 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 01:22 AM | Reply

"The one who sues Snoofy. As yet, no one has been sued, so there is no enforcement."

I still don't see how that's not sufficient basis* to grant injunctive relief.
The chilling effect is already evident.
If that isn't sufficient, nothing will be.

Trump delivered his abortion ban, just like he promised.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:32 AM | Reply

#139 and #141

If the goals of the law are as I said at 87 then whoever or whatever group came up with the text of this legislation it is a absolutely masterful. They gave a lot of thought, and I mean a lot of thought, into all procedural and substantive aspects of 50 years of abortion jurisprudence. At the end of the day I think it will fail after a long and tortuous road but I must give credit where it is due. It's genius. A work of art.

That said, (my best Justin Wilson impersonation) I "gauran d**n tee" it ain't the state legislators who introduced and sponsored the legislation that wrote it.

#147 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 01:37 AM | Reply

i wouldn't call suing without damages genius, nor deputizing neighbors to harass woman art.

#148 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-09-06 01:40 AM | Reply

#146

Chilling effect is not a basis for injunctive action in this case unfortunately. But according to 3 SCOTUS justices you are not wrong, but 6 feel that until someone actually tries to enforce the law, the courts are duty-bound to stay out of it.

It's a sophistic-based argument based on the harm its causing, but in law, sophistry oftentimes defines its interpretations by humans with less than just intentions.

At least as I see it: Yes, real people are suffering until the law is enjoined or ruled invalid. Hopefully smarter minds are busily working towards its end as we speak. As a matter of fact, I know that they are.

#149 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 01:40 AM | Reply

That said, (my best Justin Wilson impersonation) I "gauran d**n tee" it ain't the state legislators who introduced and sponsored the legislation that wrote it.

This is masterclass ALEC/Federalist Society/Koch-affiliated group work. No doubt about it.

#150 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 01:42 AM | Reply

#148 he means it in the same way a doctor says a critically ill neonate is a "cool case."

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:48 AM | Reply

It's interesting how people can be so smart to write this law, and still think abortion is actually a problem, and not a solution.

Well, I guess that's why people keep calling them Nazis.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:50 AM | Reply

Did I get my vax

None of your fccking business.

Seeking an abortion

Everybodies fccking business

#153 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 01:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#150

I don't doubt it. That, however, does not detract from the quality of the draftsmanship.

I read in some article who it is but don't remember who or which article. I don't think it's those you named but "affiliates," who knows. Nevertheless, it'll come out sooner or later.

#154 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 02:06 AM | Reply

#154

On the contrary, my remark was a compliment to the nefarious quality and effectiveness of their work. I was not diminishing it nor the groups at all.

All three of the entities I mentioned have had outsized (and to my sensibilities almost wholly negative) influence upon American law, politics, and jurisprudence over the last 4 or so decades.

#155 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 02:16 AM | Reply

#153

Not a bad juxtaposition. Stupid is as stupid does.

I also point out that;

But as I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws." (emphasis added)

www.law.cornell.edu

drudge.com

#156 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 02:22 AM | Reply

#155

Chill out. That was not meant as a criticism of anything you wrote. It was directed at the obvious detractors.

#157 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 02:33 AM | Reply

----- nasty over here.

#158 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-06 03:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sorry -------------. What's done is done..

#159 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-06 03:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Trump delivered his abortion ban, just like he promised.
#146 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Why didn't bitem undo it? On day one.

#160 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-09-06 06:12 AM | Reply

How would that be done?

#161 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-09-06 06:49 AM | Reply

"What's done is done"
Right up there with, "It is what it is."
Stop bogarting the joint, Dave.
Oh, wait, Dave's not here.

#162 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-09-06 06:53 AM | Reply

"How would that be done?
#161 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS"

With the same degree of ease (or difficulty) as Trump had to "Make it happen".

#163 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-09-06 08:22 AM | Reply

Phester.
It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

#164 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 09:34 AM | Reply

As usual ET AL summarizes this law well.

But he gets trolled by the usual demanding to know if he's against it or not.

I couldn't care less his position. Explaining the bill itself and the likely next steps are what I value.

This is a fantastic contribution to this place.

The last thing he should have to deal with are -------- who criticize him for not simply blurting out "------- Nazi".

Worthless trolls who make it harder for experts to post here because all they're interested in doing is assigning them to the GOP so they can throw spitwads at them.

#165 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-06 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I appreciated his explanation as well,eb.

Worthless trolls

I suppose we are.

#166 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 10:40 AM | Reply

I suppose we are.

It's been the theme for the weekend.

#167 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-09-06 10:41 AM | Reply

Bruce, you insisted he tell us where he personally stood on this issue.

Why was that so important to you?

Imagine for a moment he happened to be pro-life and supported it personally. Would that diminish his expertise he clearly contributed on this thread?

Why do his personal views matter if he's not inserting them into the debate?

Think about that for a moment. You're insisting everybody state a position on something for the sole purpose of attacking them.

The specific issue is actually irrelevant. The attacking is all that matters. I'm not talking about you specifically but you can see this every day if you open your eyes.

It's the reason why people like ET AL logs off this site after this thread and says, "Jesus ... .it will be a long time before I come back to that cesspool".

And it's the same people who do this every day.

#168 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-06 10:52 AM | Reply

Eberly, I have a cousin who is a lawyer. Though she is not a criminal defense lawyer, I asked her if she would defend a man accused of murder who was undeniably guilty. (many eyewitnesses, indisputable forensic evidence, etc.) She said she would defend him with everything in her power to try to free him. I asked her why. She said because he's guaranteed that in the 6th amendment.

Et_al reminds me of my cousin. It is irrelevant what he thinks. What is important to him is the letter of the law.

#169 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-06 11:00 AM | Reply

Bruce:happy drunk

Eb: angry drunk.

Jesus.... it will be a long time before I come back to that cesspool

Yet here you are
Lol

#170 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 11:03 AM | Reply

170

Taking it personal?

Seriously?

#171 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-06 11:13 AM | Reply

169

It's possible to be objective on issues.

Trolls can't understand that.

#172 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-06 11:14 AM | Reply

Taking it personal?

Yeah, now my wife has a black eye and it's your fault.

/s

#173 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 11:23 AM | Reply

Following Tony and etals posts it was my understanding that the courts issue injunctions all the time in advance of the law being enforced

#174 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-06 12:04 PM | Reply

Following Tony and etals posts it was my understanding that the courts issue injunctions all the time in advance of the law being enforced

When their are established "enforcers" that the courts can identify. Again, this is the difference between criminal and civil law. Any criminal statute will be enforced by LEO, so injunctive relief can be sought. This law is civil, and until someone in the public actually files a suit against someone else there is no one or any entity to enjoin.

#175 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 12:34 PM | Reply

When there are established "enforcers" ... natch.

#176 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 12:36 PM | Reply

Well don't the courts act as enforcers since any suit would have to be adjudicated?

#177 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-06 12:38 PM | Reply

A main concern of mine is Texas judges being elected, makes it kinda political.

I know judges here in AZ are appointed by politicians but they don't run for office. We can vote one out at election time but you can't vote them in.

Seems about as reasonable as you can get.

#178 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:48 PM | Reply

#177

You answered your own question. The courts adjudicate, not enforce as the terms are defined in law.

Enforcement means bringing charges to the courts, not what happens in the courts.

#179 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 01:14 PM | Reply

Interesting thread and highly educational. Thank you Et_al and Tony even Bruce and Snoof with the questions that brought the answers down to a level even I could understand.

Never been pro-abortion or anti-choice I decided long ago that my only contribution is that I swear I'll never personally have one. That said this law is BS and should a GoFundMe be necessary to fund a test case I'll be happy to donate. Not really over the abortion aspects, but more so over the slippery slope factors brought up earlier in the thread, about neighbor narcing on neighbor. Best to get this nonsense shut down quickly.

#180 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-09-06 04:51 PM | Reply

#87 The primary intent of the law is to functionally end abortion in this state.

Maybe, but the purpose might be to get the GQP base hoping for an end to abortion, only to see it struck down by SCOTUS just before mid term elections. The base would be enraged at having their moral victory stolen and turn out in droves. It would also distract from issues that affect the most Americans.

Ending abortion is bad for GQP as it will enrage the left. Getting tantalizingly close to ending abortion is great for motivating the GQP base, and it will lull the left into a false sense of security.

#181 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-06 04:53 PM | Reply

Why don't some abortion providers just ignore the law so they get sued to bring this to a head? Nobody is getting locked up over this and if it is unconstitutional, the damages, which are of no standing to an uninjured party, will never be paid.

It seems the providers of abortion in Texas are risk averse and mercenary. They fear possible monetary loss.

#182 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-06 04:56 PM | Reply

"Why don't some abortion providers just ignore the law so they get sued to bring this to a head?"

Well, at $10,000 minimum damages, times 29,000,000 Texans...

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 04:58 PM | Reply

It seems the providers of abortion in Texas are risk averse and mercenary. They fear possible monetary loss.

I don't think that's entirely correct. First, it is Texas (meaning sympathetic judges) and federal appeals go through the 5th Circuit. Though it sounds easy to force the issue, don't forget that any defendant's attorney's costs will not be compensated by the plaintiffs even if they win, so those costs will be lost forever and cannot be reimbursed. Also realize if a Texas court does rule in the plaintiff's favor, their attorney's costs are also borne by the defendant on top of the monetary awards.

So at this moment, of course they fear open-ended monetary losses - that is why the law was written as it was. That fear is the deterrent.

But don't be too harsh too quickly. Smart heads are figuring out how to navigate this new landscape. At least give them some time to chart a course that makes the most sense instead of having them jump into the new reality, potentially making it worse by taking away needed funding from health servicing and handing it to right wing attorneys and plaintiffs.

#184 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-06 05:12 PM | Reply

$10,000 bounty?

That's more than what half the state of Texas makes in a year.

The law was designed to punish people over a Constitutional right because it gave the Talibaptists the sads. It will be abused. People will be dragged into court to defend themselves over this when they did not have an abortion because there are no consequences to the people who do so.

Just when I think no state could be worse than Florida.

#185 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-07 07:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A $10,000 bounty might come in handy if you can put it towards a month's worth of residential electricity in Texas. Unless you opt for Cancun instead.

#186 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-09-07 08:25 AM | Reply

#186 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

$10,000 is almost one-third of median income in this part of Texas. There will be many here who will be tempted by that, even if they have to lie their asses off to make the accusation.

#187 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-07 08:52 AM | Reply

"I'm 52. In my entire life, I've never met a woman that has told me she's had an abortion."

You must be a ----- hoot at parties.

I've never been told by a woman that she has either, but I am not some creeper that would ask such a question.

#188 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-07 11:16 AM | Reply

#180 - Did Eberly say he asked women if they had had an abortion, or are you just trolling?

#189 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-07 11:21 AM | Reply

^ meant for post #188

#190 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-07 11:23 AM | Reply

Time for a new federal law.

If you sue someone for having an abortion, you are liable for $500,000.

People will line up to be sued.

#191 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-09-07 11:25 AM | Reply

Apparently the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate in the world.
They have very low infant mortality and morbidity rates as well.

If people cared about fetuses, they would do what the Netherlands does.

#192 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-07 12:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort