Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Gilead arrives   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: News, Abortion, Human rights, constitutionality of a Mississippi law, Texas law, Roe v. Wade, Abortion providers, abortion clinics, legal challenges  
•       •       •

8218 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Sep 2021 at 7:05 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



650 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-09-01 2:07:06 AM  
Tomorrow morning, lawsuits should be filed against every Republican lawmaker and their entire family accusing them of aiding and abetting abortion.  The next day, new lawsuits against all of them and so on.  The Texas courts should be so clogged with these types of suits that they cease to function.  Maybe then they'll realize how stupid an idea this is.
 
2021-09-01 2:16:53 AM  
How soon will the first Texan "stand their ground" against some women's clinic healthcare worker? There is far too much blood lust in this world for that unfortunate scenario to not play out in the most ignorant way possible.
 
2021-09-01 2:33:33 AM  
"And as a result, Democrat voters were once again highly motivated in the 2022 midterms."
 
2021-09-01 4:31:25 AM  
This cannot be constitutional on some many levels.
 
2021-09-01 4:31:52 AM  

bostonguy: This cannot be constitutional on some many levels.

 
2021-09-01 4:40:37 AM  
Ah, yes. The "F*cking Around" phase.

We're going to be so surprised later when we Find Out.
 
2021-09-01 5:20:03 AM  

make me some tea: "And as a result, Democrat voters were once again highly motivated in the 2022 midterms."


Only if Democrats move in great numbers to heavily gerrymandered Republican districts.
 
2021-09-01 6:16:03 AM  
The American Taliban now controls Texas.
 
2021-09-01 6:43:13 AM  
Is this a preview of social conservatism on the rise? Let's pray that it isn't. And that prayer, I might add, will soon be mandatory.
 
2021-09-01 6:44:09 AM  
Time to expand SCOTUS.
 
2021-09-01 6:44:44 AM  

make me some tea: "And as a result, Democrat voters were once again highly motivated in the 2022 midterms."


Came to say this.

Now that they don't have the courts protecting the right to abortion, the Pro Choice people will have to stop being complacent and elect Democratic state legislatures. Maybe they'll become as active as the Anti Abortion people have been for the last few decades (which they should have been all along).
 
2021-09-01 6:53:54 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.


Certainly is shaping up that way.

FLASHBACK: Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks on Supreme Court vacancy in 2016
Youtube kw8SSQHQitg
 
2021-09-01 6:56:00 AM  
fark Texas
 
2021-09-01 7:08:35 AM  
Meet us halfway, Texas. How about the abortion doctor doesn't wear a mask?
 
2021-09-01 7:10:50 AM  

Stile4aly: Tomorrow morning, lawsuits should be filed against every Republican lawmaker and their entire family accusing them of aiding and abetting abortion.  The next day, new lawsuits against all of them and so on.  The Texas courts should be so clogged with these types of suits that they cease to function.  Maybe then they'll realize how stupid an idea this is.


Go ahead. The law says anyone in the country can do it.
 
2021-09-01 7:11:27 AM  

Lorelle: The American Taliban now controls Texas.


What do you mean, "now"? They've been in control for decades.
 
2021-09-01 7:11:35 AM  
What happened to "my body, my choice"?
 
2021-09-01 7:12:50 AM  
...it ends not with a bang, but a whisper
 
2021-09-01 7:13:12 AM  

theteacher: What happened to "my body, my choice"?


Silly, that's only for vaccines and taxes for white people.
 
2021-09-01 7:13:22 AM  
As I understand the law, a defendant in Texas isn't entitled to compensation for attorney's fees even if they prevail in court. And failure to appear is proof of guilt.

So... what's to stop anyone, anywhere in the US from filing against GOP lawmakers, then just not showing up at the hearings? GOP has to get lawyers. If they don't show up, summary judgement. They can't risk it.

Any fark lawyers want to weigh in? What's the downside for the plaintiff to not show at an initial hearing? Would that constitute contempt of court?
 
2021-09-01 7:13:26 AM  

theteacher: What happened to "my body, my choice"?


You know... I'm starting to think these Republicans might not be completely honest with their positions.
 
2021-09-01 7:13:39 AM  

bostonguy: This cannot be constitutional on some many levels.


Well as long as you're not trying to make the fetus wear a mask.
 
2021-09-01 7:15:03 AM  
goddamn Texas sucks, and I'm in Florida
 
2021-09-01 7:15:05 AM  

UncleDirtNap: bostonguy: This cannot be constitutional on some many levels.

Well as long as you're not trying to make the fetus wear a mask.


Or give it health care once it pops out.
 
2021-09-01 7:15:41 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.


Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?
 
2021-09-01 7:18:14 AM  
Women in texas need to be reminded daily that this is a result of either not voting, or voting for republicans.
 
2021-09-01 7:18:38 AM  

bostonguy: This cannot be constitutional on some many levels.


The article on this outlined how it's not -- who's breaking the constitution? Not the state -- they never said abortion is banned.

This whole ploy depends on citizens who snitch on patients and their "enablers" being given standing to sue -- without any liability, no less. And once that gets started, the defendants have to either defend the action, or be fined $10,000. Regardless, the clinic has to close.

But the state is completely hands off -- and the SCOTUS has chosen to let cunning stunt to go forward.
 
2021-09-01 7:18:46 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-01 7:19:25 AM  
What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.

Elections have consequences. The American people wanted this.
 
2021-09-01 7:20:15 AM  
For anyone who opposes abortion on moral grounds, be warned that this and other laws like it are going to backfire on you big time.

Abortion used to be outlawed in many parts of the country before Roe.  Like with weed, gambling, prostitution, and so many other things outlawed but still in high demand, the market for it still thrived, but underground.  That's going to happen all over again.  All those blastocytes and fetuses you're so very concerned about are still very much going to die just like before, only in greater numbers and frequency as now there's no oversight. But the really big difference now is that you'll never know about it except when some poor and terrified teen-age mother ends up dead in a back alley from a botched operation from an unlicensed 'provider.'

I'm sure conservatives nowadays, at least the ones not dropping dead from their own stupidity, will still sneer and slut-shame even then.  But those few of you left with even a trickle of conscience, please take note that this is the day you enabled all that to happen.
 
2021-09-01 7:21:28 AM  

skribble: goddamn Texas sucks, and I'm in Florida


We're next, you know.
 
2021-09-01 7:22:55 AM  

PoweredByIrony: As I understand the law, a defendant in Texas isn't entitled to compensation for attorney's fees even if they prevail in court. And failure to appear is proof of guilt.

So... what's to stop anyone, anywhere in the US from filing against GOP lawmakers, then just not showing up at the hearings? GOP has to get lawyers. If they don't show up, summary judgement. They can't risk it.

Any fark lawyers want to weigh in? What's the downside for the plaintiff to not show at an initial hearing? Would that constitute contempt of court?


I'm sure that the snitch has to be able to document something that the defendants would have a hard time denying under Oath. Like, I saw so-and-so go in, and Person X drove them to the clinic. Or gave them money -- or the counselors at the clinic themselves.

It's all bulls***
 
2021-09-01 7:23:28 AM  

skribble: goddamn Texas sucks, and I'm in Florida


Wait for it.  Same goes for every GQP controlled state.
 
2021-09-01 7:23:58 AM  

RasIanI: bostonguy: This cannot be constitutional on some many levels.

The article on this outlined how it's not -- who's breaking the constitution? Not the state -- they never said abortion is banned.

This whole ploy depends on citizens who snitch on patients and their "enablers" being given standing to sue -- without any liability, no less. And once that gets started, the defendants have to either defend the action, or be fined $10,000. Regardless, the clinic has to close.

But the state is completely hands off -- and the SCOTUS has chosen to let cunning stunt to go forward.


The courts are still state action. Allowing people to use the courts to enforce the law still falls under government action.
 
2021-09-01 7:24:45 AM  

dodecahedron: skribble: goddamn Texas sucks, and I'm in Florida

We're next, you know.


you're probably right.

goddamn Florida...
 
2021-09-01 7:24:47 AM  
Ugh jeebus.  Well that's something only 54% of white women voters will support.  I would stop bringing this up, if only it were just evil men trying to control, torture, and subjugate women.
 
2021-09-01 7:25:28 AM  

Mike_1962: skribble: goddamn Texas sucks, and I'm in Florida

Wait for it.  Same goes for every GQP controlled state.


They nearly shut down the only abortion provider in Missouri several months ago.  The state government was pushing hard.. only a last second reprieve by the judiciary saved them.
 
2021-09-01 7:25:33 AM  

Lorelle: The American Taliban now controls Texas.


Hasn't it always been in their hands sans a couple isolated villages?
 
2021-09-01 7:25:33 AM  

RasIanI: ...it ends not with a bang, but a whisper


It's not over yet. This whisper is going to have a whopper of a backlash, full of unintended consequences.
 
2021-09-01 7:25:46 AM  

Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.

Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?


The legislative branch has enforcement mechanisms and the judicial branch does not.

The Supreme Court gets however many justices the legislative branch specified and either deals with it... Or I suppose the justices that can't deal with it resign in protest. I'd think the ones that voted for it that didn't resign would also join the very small number of Supreme Court justices that have been impeached, and end their careers with a * by their name.
 
2021-09-01 7:25:52 AM  
Trump installed three Supreme Court justices with the assistance of a corrupt and shamelessly hypocritical Republican party.

"Both sides" may have a lot of overlap, but not on this.

Beyond the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary is going to be filled with Trump nominees for the next 30 years.

Don't forget about the current push for voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Buckle up for a shiatty ride. It's going to be a while.
 
2021-09-01 7:26:02 AM  

Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.

Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?


The court is expanded because there's nothing unconstitutional about expanding the court.
 
2021-09-01 7:27:28 AM  
RasIanI:
This whole ploy depends on citizens who snitch on patients and their "enablers" being given standing to sue -- without any liability, no less. And once that gets started, the defendants have to either defend the action, or be fined $10,000. Regardless, the clinic has to close.

But the state is completely hands off -- and the SCOTUS has chosen to let cunning stunt to go forward.


They think they're being clever, but like everything it turns out this is a terrible idea. If this law's format is okay, then DC can take the law, replace "abortion" with "gun sale" and "after 6 weeks" with "before the mandatory waiting period" and let an army of interest groups make  gun sales too risky. Repeat in every blue state, and you've just end-run around the court's rulings expanding 2nd amendment access.
 
2021-09-01 7:27:39 AM  

Xetal: Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.

Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?

The legislative branch has enforcement mechanisms and the judicial branch does not.

The Supreme Court gets however many justices the legislative branch specified and either deals with it... Or I suppose the justices that can't deal with it resign in protest. I'd think the ones that voted for it that didn't resign would also join the very small number of Supreme Court justices that have been impeached, and end their careers with a * by their name.


So you expect the Republicans in the court to willingly go along with removing them from power or else they'll be impeached?

hahahahahahahahahaha
 
2021-09-01 7:27:53 AM  

Lorelle: The American Taliban now controls Texas.


From what we've heard recently the Taliban has evolved, so Texas rapepublicns are more like ISIS and have devolved.
 
2021-09-01 7:30:24 AM  

RasIanI: PoweredByIrony: As I understand the law, a defendant in Texas isn't entitled to compensation for attorney's fees even if they prevail in court. And failure to appear is proof of guilt.

So... what's to stop anyone, anywhere in the US from filing against GOP lawmakers, then just not showing up at the hearings? GOP has to get lawyers. If they don't show up, summary judgement. They can't risk it.

Any fark lawyers want to weigh in? What's the downside for the plaintiff to not show at an initial hearing? Would that constitute contempt of court?

I'm sure that the snitch has to be able to document something that the defendants would have a hard time denying under Oath. Like, I saw so-and-so go in, and Person X drove them to the clinic. Or gave them money -- or the counselors at the clinic themselves.

It's all bulls***


If "I was walking by the post office and a truck showed up with bags and the guy unloaded them and then drove off without looking at anyone" is evidence of election election fraud.

"I saw Billie Joe and Bobbie Sue walking down the street the other day and she looked fatter, and the next week when I saw her she wasn't wearing a coat that time and was skinny again. So she must have had an abortion." Should be enough to get this in to court.
 
2021-09-01 7:31:10 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.

Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?

The court is expanded because there's nothing unconstitutional about expanding the court.


Guess who gets to decide whether something is constitutional or not?
 
2021-09-01 7:32:52 AM  

Xetal: Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.

Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?

The legislative branch has enforcement mechanisms and the judicial branch does not.

The Supreme Court gets however many justices the legislative branch specified and either deals with it... Or I suppose the justices that can't deal with it resign in protest. I'd think the ones that voted for it that didn't resign would also join the very small number of Supreme Court justices that have been impeached, and end their careers with a * by their name.


Getting impeached without being convicted, which is what would happen in such a circumstance, is practically a badge of honour on the right these days.
 
2021-09-01 7:33:07 AM  

g-clef: RasIanI:
This whole ploy depends on citizens who snitch on patients and their "enablers" being given standing to sue -- without any liability, no less. And once that gets started, the defendants have to either defend the action, or be fined $10,000. Regardless, the clinic has to close.

But the state is completely hands off -- and the SCOTUS has chosen to let cunning stunt to go forward.

They think they're being clever, but like everything it turns out this is a terrible idea. If this law's format is okay, then DC can take the law, replace "abortion" with "gun sale" and "after 6 weeks" with "before the mandatory waiting period" and let an army of interest groups make  gun sales too risky. Repeat in every blue state, and you've just end-run around the court's rulings expanding 2nd amendment access.


Yep

"hey, let's make citizens an arm of law enforcement so they can accomplish what the state is constitutionally forbidden to do, no way that will ever backfire!"
 
2021-09-01 7:33:24 AM  

Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Albino Squid: AdmirableSnackbar: Time to expand SCOTUS.

Now, stick with me for a moment here. Congress passes a law to increase the size of SCOTUS and pack the court. Republicans file to SCOTUS for injunctive relief.

What do you think happens next?

The court is expanded because there's nothing unconstitutional about expanding the court.

Guess who gets to decide whether something is constitutional or not?


Your mom?

Goddamn you "let's do nothing to fight Republicans, ever, because Republicans will win" useless wastes of oxygen are tiresome. What is the point of you?
 
Displayed 50 of 650 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.