154
Texas highways are the next anti-abortion target. One town is resisting.
(www.texastribune.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
154 points (99.4% liked)
politics
18821 readers
4961 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly? As an American I find this positively insane.
Not just because it’s insane… but also they think it can be enforced.
Keep in mind this is the state that seceded from Mexico because they wanted to keep their slaves, failed as their own nation…. Joined the us and then seceded again because they got told no slaves again.
It's not even important if it can actually be enforced. Just the spectre of it maybe being enforced is enough to change people's behaviour.
This whole "letting the citizens sue other citizens" loophole that the Rs have started to use as a means to circumvent proper lawmaking processes has to be closed.
It's not a legal issue, it's just propaganda and fear mongering masked as a legal issue to create confusion.
Anybody can sue anybody for anything. That's a fact you can't and don't want to change.
These "laws" would not stand up in court. They don't actually want anybody to sue for this because the first case that gets thrown out or ruled against will show that.
But until that happens it's a cheap way to scare people.
The problem isn’t that anyone can sue anyone, the problem is that these laws give legal standing for anyone to sue anyone. Normal lawsuits have to pass a certain bar to establish legal standing, and if you don’t pass that bar your case gets thrown out. These laws essentially skip that part by giving blanket legal standing. I don’t know if that would stand up in a higher court, but it’s a dangerous precedent that they’re establishing.
You don't need express "legal standing" to sue. At most it might prevent the odd case from being summarily thrown out and prolong the inevitable. Like I said, from a legal standpoint this is mostly irrelevant, It's pure posturing – "someone could sue you" – which was already true. It changes nothing.