PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on October 25, 2021, 06:14:20 AM
-
We know the Supreme Court declined to suspend the Texas heartbeat law. To me, that's a good thing.
From a legal standpoint, I'm not a lawyer, but I can think. To me, this law comes back to a 10th Amendment issue whereas the Left will try to make it a 14th Amendment "right to privacy", which is almost laughable given the state of things today.
This is different that R v. W because here, Texas has affirmed the State's right to define life. Effectively, they have said that in the State of Texas, it is known that life exists when a heartbeat is detected. As a consequence, once life is established, the unborn child becomes a citizen of the State and is due all legal protections, including not being murdered.
To break this, the Left will have to argue that a State does not have the right define life, which to me seems to be a very tall order. The Constitution is completely silent on the issue of when life begins, which means it falls to the States to handle.
-
My problem with the Texas bill is it officially authorizes vigilante behavior in the populace. Strikes me as a really bad thing.
-
My problem with the Texas bill is it officially authorizes vigilante behavior in the populace. Strikes me as a really bad thing.
This is one of the things that bothers me too. Anyone can sue anyone over it, except the woman herself, that means whomever drove her to the appointment, or gave her money for it. So we are going to have organized and well funded political groups bringing cases against largely poor and lower class people, the grandmothers who helped their daughters, and apparently the fathers! So it’s sexist against males. Punish the dad for driving the skank to the appointment and paying for the abortion but the skank herself goes free.
The other problem I have is that it’s not going to prevent abortion. It is causing people to go out of state for them and again, that affects the poor the most. Those least able to afford another child must now come up with a couple thousand dollars to pay for travel, hotel, etc., for an abortion, the alternative being have another child that ends up on welfare and is at higher risk of being abused, raised fatherless, and ultimately boosting the criminal class.
While personally I believe abortion is murder and could never do it myself (unless the baby were severely deformed and won’t live anyway - that’s another big problem I have with the law! Those devastating cases should be entirely decided by a patient and her partner and doctor, government should stay completely out of it), I have a hard time imposing my morality on others in a class I myself don’t experience: I’m not impoverished, I’m not facing the knowledge that I don’t posses the stamina and resources to raise a child, so I have trouble judging women in that situation. However adoption is an option, the reason people don’t do that are many and can be debated.
If you are well off and have means but just want to delay starting a family because of your career, that’s unconscionable IMO practically narcissistic. I can’t understand anyone killing their baby for that reason.
Yet another thing that bothers me is Texas arbitrarily deciding life begins when our current technology detects a heartbeat. Although I agree with states rights to make that determination, I don’t agree with Texas. Life begins when the sperm meets the egg. Killing it at any point after that is taking a new and unique human life. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see the pragmatic problems with restricting all abortion at any point in pregnancy.
Because of these conflicting issues, I believe it should be up to each state and RvW should be reversed. Texas has a right to make its law even though I think it’s problematic.
-
My problem with the Texas bill is it officially authorizes vigilante behavior in the populace. Strikes me as a really bad thing.
What part of the bill does that?
-
What part of the bill does that?
I understand the strict definition of vigilante means outside the law and this statute empowers anyone through the civil law process to enforce, so technically not vigilantism. But it is a pathway for private individuals to do a money grab targeting anyone involved in the abortion except the skank that got herself knocked up.
Sec. 171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR
ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or
employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of
this subchapter;
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
violation of this subchapter; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by
Subdivision (1) or (2).
….
……statutory damages in an amount of not less than
$10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced
in violation of this subchapter, and for each abortion performed or
induced in violation of this subchapter that the defendant aided or
abetted; and
(3) costs and attorney's fees.
-
It seems tone consistent with bidding assisting suicide, or facilitating homicides.
-
I understand the strict definition of vigilante means outside the law and this statute empowers anyone through the civil law process to enforce, so technically not vigilantism. ...
technically not vigilantism.
morally not vigilantism.
It's a gross misrepresentation to call it vigilantism.
oh heck, why sugarcoat it...actually, it's a bald-faced lie to call it vigilantism.
-
My problem with the Texas bill is it officially authorizes vigilante behavior in the populace. Strikes me as a really bad thing.
Yeah that's the liberal party line, so I can see why it strikes you that way.
But to me, vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands. It seems to me that this law allows citizens to bring the offense to the attention of the law.
I think you need to find another argument.
-
It seems tone consistent with bidding assisting suicide, or facilitating homicides.
But in homicide the person pulling the trigger is held responsible or the person hiring the hit man. Think of abortion as a woman hiring a hit man (doctor) to kill her baby. With this law the person hiring the hit man is free and clear and the person lending the money to her as well as the doctor are held responsible. That doesn’t seem right. She’s the one that said, “Yes, go ahead and suck my baby into pieces.” (Except for when they’re forced into it by a parent or an abusive partner or pimp.)
-
Does it impact the poor the most?
Of course it does. They're the ones being targeted most heavily by Margaret Sanger's eugenics plan / plan to get rid of black people. It's not exclusively black, but in the US the abortion rate of black babies is nearly half the rate of live births - 1/3 of black pregnancies end in abortion. In big cities, that rate is over 50%, more abortions than births.
Mrs. Sanger would be thrilled. Her plan has been so effective that the black population is less than half what it would have been.
For this, we should all be ashamed.
-
Does it impact the poor the most?
Of course it does. They're the ones being targeted most heavily by Margaret Sanger's eugenics plan / plan to get rid of black people. It's not exclusively black, but in the US the abortion rate of black babies is nearly half the rate of live births - 1/3 of black pregnancies end in abortion. In big cities, that rate is over 50%, more abortions than births.
Mrs. Sanger would be thrilled. Her plan has been so effective that the black population is less than half what it would have been.
For this, we should all be ashamed.
But what is the actual live birth rate? Just because they are getting a lot of abortions doesn't mean they aren't being prolific.
-
But what is the actual live birth rate? Just because they are getting a lot of abortions doesn't mean they aren't being prolific.
No idea. Whatever it is, abortions have eliminated half the black people we would have had, because were never born. Probably more than half, there would have been children, grand children and some great grand children by now.
-
But what is the actual live birth rate? Just because they are getting a lot of abortions doesn't mean they aren't being prolific.
From 2010 to 2019 there does not appear to be any change in live births by race, per data here:
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6038-total-births-by-race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/3,2,1,4,13/12703,12704 (https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6038-total-births-by-race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/3,2,1,4,13/12703,12704)
Blacks accounted for 15% of births each year for that ten year period while whites dropped slightly from 54% to 52%. Other races rose from 8% to 9%. Also notable is that in 2010 there were 3,999,386 births but that dropped about 6% to 3,747,540. But dropping birth rate is already known to most who follow population changes.
Some more abortion stats are here:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm)
According to that page, in 2018 white women had 110 abortions per 1000 live births (6.3 abortions per 1,000 women) while black women had 335 abortions per 1000 live births (21.2 abortions per 1,000 women). It goes on to say that a higher rate of unintended pregnancies appears to lead to the higher rate of abortions for black women. Since live births by blacks relative to whites have remained unchanged, it seems reasonable to suppose both groups have, statistically speaking, similar goals with respect to family size.