The state of Texas has passed a law that, in practical terms, outlaws abortion, and the Supreme Court has so far not responded to a request to block it. This makes Texas yet another state where it's either impossible or nearly impossible to procure an abortion.
There's nothing unexpected about this. Ever since last year, when Republicans got a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, abortion activists have been eager to find test cases that will give the Court an excuse to overturn Roe v. Wade. Maybe it will be the Texas law or maybe it will be some other abortion law. But sometime in the next year or two this is going to happen, and there's every reason to think that Roe will then be either completely or largely overturned. At that point, every state will have the authority to pass its own abortion laws, including ones that outright ban abortion.
This prompts me to propose something that's been niggling away at me for a long time. It might be completely stupid, but here it is.
Even if Roe is overturned, there will still be states in which abortion is fully legal. For the sake of conversation, let's pick California, Illinois, and New York as our examples.
So here's my idea. Someone rich sets up an organization, probably in partnership with Planned Parenthood, that arranges for abortions in any state where it's illegal. Basically, you call an 800 number and arrange a date. Maybe there's phone counseling required too. On the date, a car comes to your house and drives you to the nearest airport. You get on a plane to the closest state with liberal abortion laws, where a car is waiting for you when you land. You head off to the clinic and get your abortion. Then a car takes you back and you're home by nightfall. All of this is free of charge—or perhaps on a sliding scale depending on income.
My super rough horseback guess is that this would cost a billion dollars a year. Maybe two or three. This is really not much for a Bezos/Gates/Zuckerberg class of zillionaire for whom reproductive rights are something of a crusade.
I know that I'm being cavalier about a billion dollars, but honestly, I'd be willing to vote for an initiative in California that would fund something like this entirely out of taxpayer pockets and make California the abortion capital of the country.
Is there something I'm missing here? There's a whole lot of us, billionaires and thousandaires alike, who would be willing to fund something like this. Would there be something illegal about soliciting across state lines? Am I miscalculating the cost by a factor of a hundred? Is there some other obvious thing I'm overlooking?
None of this is meant to minimize the preferred solution of simply keeping Roe alive across the country. But given the fact that this might not be possible, is there anything wrong with making plans for what to do if and when it falls? If we can truly guarantee reproductive rights for a few billion dollars a year, surely that's not a very high price to pay?
Belt tightening,
if we could just cut off that paunch,
https://i.redd.it/1wmq37ykdji71.jpg
a remarkable coincidence,
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/p8phly/yearly_road_deaths_per_million_people_across_the/
I'm sure it's all just chance. What else could these people be doing that would explain this?
Conservatives, first they tried to ally themselves with Putin and anyone else who appeared to be killing people and that didn't work, so now they've taken up with covid.
Ignore that, America! Vote for somebody else now!
To Kevin's question; would it work for a billionaire to cover travel expenses, etc. effectively circumventing anti-abortion laws?
Yes, it would work in the sense that a dedicated multi-billionaire could cover the expenses and women could get abortions in other states.
But there are nonetheless reasons not to do it, and reasons to hope no billionaire steps forward, at least not yet.
It circumvents the political problem and would potentially be useful to conservatives, giving a pressure relief valve to reduce political pressure. In this case scenario it settles in for the long term: Abortion is illegal in many states, and legislatures figure out making it illegal does not generate so much backlash. So more states make it illegal. As the system becomes entrenched the left raises money and it becomes well known, if you live in the wrong state you can nonetheless get an abortion. We could reach a new equilibrium.
The posited altruistic billionaire (is such a creature possible?) would ask herself, my money might stabilize the situation and spawns a new status quo, is that better than letting it play out?
Beyond that, it is sooo giving up on democracy and accepting we are now an oligarchy.
"Beyond that, it is sooo giving up on democracy and accepting we are now an oligarchy."
You haven't accepted that yet? Denying it won't make it go away either.
As to Kevin's scheme: I don't think it would work. You could be sued in Texas for "aiding and abetting", even if you are not a Texan. And then you have to rely on your state government to refuse to enforce judgements from Texas. Good luck!
Even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, that doesn't mean they would allow a state to engage in extraterritorial enforcement of its laws, certainly not to the point of abrogating the Constitutional right to interstate travel. The bigger problem is that I'm not aware of anyone--including the taxpayers of California--who wants to spend $1 billion a year providing abortions to all.
Can't one neither accept nor deny?
I hope we aren't at the point where we need to be rescued by billionaires, but I realize we might be.
I believe the Texas law covers this. You can not only sue anyone who performs an abortion but also anyone who aids or abets it. Since you have to go into Texas to do this, that puts you under their jurisdiction.
Exactly. In order to enter a judgment binding a particular civil defendant, the court must have "personal jurisdiction" over that defendant. Courts in one state have personal jurisdiction over that state's residents. But they can also have personal jurisdiction over non-residents who have "minimum contacts" with the state. Those contacts don't have to be much.
Activity directed toward the forum state is generally considered to be "minimum contacts" that will support personal jurisdiction. Most of what you describe in your idea would be "minimum contacts": advertising in Texas, directing calls to the state, soliciting funds to transport Texas residents, making arrangements for the transportation. Everyone involved in that process would be subject to being sued in a Texas state court.
But , even if a court in Texas has " personal jurisdiction " over say someone in California who arranges for transportation in Texas while not actually ever being in Texas, what is the process for the court in Texas to enforce that judgment on the California person's California assets? Would they not need cooperation of the California authorities to collect and can that cooperation be compelled through a constitutional provision?
Even if this law sidesteps the roe v wade issue and survives legal challenge on anything specific re abortion, seems there might be some legal issues that are unclear with respect to other issues.
I think I found my answer one place as to how this is supposed to have any " teeth" re being able to show damages . Sounds like there is a minimum amount you get awarded as a plaintiff of 10,000.
So, presumably , if random person sues and wins the case by showing the law was violated, they get 10,000 if they can show no actual damage to themselves, right?
So, unless the person suing is maybe the father , I think it has to be 10,000 as what damages could someone else show. If it is the father, I suppose the damage claim could be millions. I wonder whether it will be standard practice if this becomes effective to try to get the father to sign off on the abortion to avoid at least that.
So a doctor in New York might do an abortion knowingly on a Texas resident if the father waives any claims because it might be so difficult for a Texas plaintiff to try to collect 10,000 that the doctor will take that chance. But not if they have potential liability of millions.
But the Texas law would allow suits against the citizen of Texas who had the abortion, and the one who took her to the airport, and so on.
Is the airline that transported her vulnerable?
The airline presumably knows the age of passengers, and something about their gender, at least as much as is declared on a Real ID card.
No, Sorry, But wrong...Any Texas Court Judgment must be respected by a CA court to the same degree as any CA Court Judgment would be, and be similarly enforceable (meaning: CA Sheriffs seizing CA bank accounts, putting liens on your property, installing a keeper in your business to gather any income that might be coming in)
"Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
I love Kevin, but his plan is totally unworkable with potentially great liability for anyone involved.
Best Wishes, Traveller
1. How would civil plaintiffs demonstrate in court that a particular provider has done an abortion on a particular person?
2. Canada is just across the river from Detroit MI. If you could get an abortion there, wouldn't that be beyond the reach of the TX law?
They may have to "respect" such things, but they are not obligated to spend one thin dime enforcing another state's laws (or even federal laws)
I’m curious how this Texas law is Constitutional given it’s mechanism for enforcement.
Why, as a random Texan, would I have standing to sue another Texan over an act for which I was neither a party to nor harmed by? And how do I as a random Texan, go about violating the privacy concerns of my fellow Texans to acquire the evidence to “claim” my bounty? Am I responsible for counter lawsuits if I fuck up and accuse someone of getting an abortion who didn’t?
Are we now a full blown banana republic in which courts deputize randos to spy on each other and collect sanctioned rewards? Yikes. Welcome to theocracy in America 2021.
A few thoughts. I remember back in the late 60's, women were asked to send their extra birth control pills to Ireland, where birth control pills were not allowed. There are already non-profits that help women afford abortions. I think they are mostly in states or cities, not nationwide. Many abortions are now done by pill, and there are online providers. Which brings us back to mailing pills to women living under authoritarian government.
Why haven't rich liberals bought up a bunch of radio stations to counter Sinclair? Why haven't rich liberals founded a left wing version of ALEC?
I don't see much evidence lefty billionaires are willing to fund their beliefs the way the plutocratic rightists do.
Maybe one side actually cares to avoid Fascism.
Wait! Haven’t you heard of SOROS!!!
Soros isn't even leftist. He's a Classical Liberal, aka believes in Free Markets, Free Thought, Free Movement and Free Elections, and all his fundings are towards causes that further those interests. These are policies that used to be fairly centrist.
There is not such thing a "lefty billionaire". There are billionaires who are somewhat centrist and not complete reactionary right-wing types, but there aren't many even then.
Warren Buffett is basically doing this.
We're going to have to make up for our covid losses somehow. I can't think of a more obvious move than increasing the birth rate via an abortion ban. Texas, as usual, points the way forward.
See, now I was going to say that the Texas open carry law might be a way to mitigate overpopulation.
Per Politico, some important context:
"The patient getting the abortion cannot be sued. Neither can individuals who refer a patient to an abortion provider in another state, or help the patient make the journey."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/texas-abortion-ban-roe-508598
But the article also says someone who lends them money or drives them to the clinic can be sued.
So I guess the distinction is that they can only sue for having the abortion in state because that is what is breaking the law. So all the concern about suits for helping someone leave the state to get an abortion are misplaced and wrong?
Which then means Kevin's idea of a fund to go out of state would work fine without a threat of lawsuits.
That makes more sense to me and I would guess that it was structured that way to avoid legal challenge . I could not understand how one state can impose a law that makes an action illegal in another state .
And, traveller , yes I understand full faith and credit but there might be limitations. For one, I was thinking more of the case where Texas was trying to allow a suit against someone aiding someone going out of state to get an abortion in another state where it is legal. That seemed to have some similarities to the old situation re gay marriage and whether a state had to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state where the legal issues were not a slam dunk. Using full faith and credit to enforce a judgement in another state with regard to breaking a law within the state where it is against the law is a cleaner issue.
And even with respect to enforcing a judgrment from Texas on someone who lent money to someone in Texas to get an illegal abortion in Texas seems to maybe have some arguable issues if the person being sued never actually did anything in Texas.
But honestly trying to sue an individual for giving someone a ride or lending money is not going to happen. How can you show proof of they just say " I did not know they were using it for an abortion " ? And suing a friend or family member who helps them that way - if you see that happening, any public support will collapse. And realistically this is aimed at the doctor. No need to sue anyone else. Public relations wise , bad move to exempt the patient but not their friend who drove them.
But another issue with full faith and credit is that, as of right now, the court has not ruled this law stands, right . They have only refused to give a stay suspending the law before it gets resolved. Do I have that right?
So could not California refuse to help Texas enforce a judgement because they claim it is unconstitutional when that issue is not yet settled?
I also wonder whether there are some legal issues in saying there is a minimum 10,000 award regardless of damages. Has that been allowed in the vigilante laws used in other states for liberal causes?
Of course not. The whole thing is insane- financially incentivizing private citizens to enforce state law through the civil courts, when they have no standing whatsoever.
There were TWO major reasons to overturn this law. But the current Supreme Court does not care one whit about the Constitution.
Pingback: Onward Christian Vigilantes | Just Above Sunset
Kevin,
Private funding of a private organization to do basic healthcare is not the solution to the GOP trying to undermine personal privacy, religious liberty, and good public policy.
Because they would soon outlaw it. THAT IS THE GOAL HERE: TO CRIMINALIZE ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL AND HOMOSEXUALITY, etc.
Waste of a post. Criminalize it. Who cares. Most Republicans engage in gay sex.
"What do we do if Roe is overturned?"
Cut off all Federal funding to the state in any form. Close all military bases and move them. Close all federal installations, offices, etc. except for the DoJ. Beef up those offices and investigate the state officials for crimes against the Constitution.
Why the hell is the Texas AG still in office??
Military bases should be closed and relocated as we can't have female servicemembers being forced to give birth merely because of where they are stationed.
This is pretty much the way it was handled in the bad old days. You either find some org that will fund a trip to New York or you find a doctor who will perform an illegal abortion.
Sooner or later - perhaps this very moment - A Texas Republican is going to get his mistress or girlfriend pregnant and is going to insist, or at least suggest, that she get an abortion. And if she has any sense, she'll see how much money she can make by turning him in. This whole thing will be shut down the second that happens. If I were a woman in Texas, I'd be recording every conversation I had with any Republicans I might even be remotely likely to have relations with.
This sounds suspiciously like the Afghan evacuation plan, meaning a lot of people are going to be left behind. It's like saying the Underground Railroad was an adequate response to slavery. Sure it was necessary, but no competition for Emancipation and Abolition.
Well I'm certainly looking forward to the day abortion is denationalized and returned to the states. It may return our politics to some sense of sanity.
Roberts voted with the minority on the court for a good reason. He's always been a GOP flunkie and understands that the Roe decision has actually benefited the party because it has split the working class, especially in rural areas. Go out in the countryside this Labor Day weekend and don't be surprised when you see signs that say "Respect Life" or "Choose Life" give an anti-abortion message in some fashion. Some have been there for years, even decades. I don't think its any coincidence that 1973, the same year Roe was decided was also the same year real wages for the middle and working classes began to stagnate and fall up until now. Abortion became an issue, first with Catholics and then with conservative Protestants, that trumped such considerations as wages and the economy. Social and cultural issues became the means in which the elites could control the masses by dividing them on such questions because abortion was a matter, like slavery, that for many you couldn't compromise on. Indeed a lot of Democrats running for office in rural areas, even if they were in favor of anti-trust measures or pro-gun simply don't get a hearing because their party is seen in these areas as pro-abortion. It just shuts down debate.
If the matter goes back to the states and each state divides pretty much as expected then many voters will conclude the matter settled outside of state action because overturning Roe was the main focus of anti-abortion activism. They may focus on other topics such as wages and other labor topics that seemed to be put in the background because of abortion and maybe the Dems will start getting a hearing again. And once the anti-abortion side accomplishes overturning Roe, what then? Do they try to engage in stopping people from having abortions by traveling to other states (that will be a hoot to watch them try) and make themselves grossly unpopular? Are we going to have South African or Soviet Union-style "pass laws" to prevent interstate travel or commerce? Are they going to try and get the courts to define abortion as murder thus like murder against the law (even though murder is a state charge)? They better be careful what they wish for, because they just might get it.