Hacker News Reader

Comment by fabian2k | Hacker News Reader

This law is quite insane, and it seems entirely rational to oppose your drivers being liable simply for driving woman to a clinic.

View on HN

Correct, would they also sue bus drivers, train conductors and plane pilots? Do they need pregnancy tests for anyone taking a taxi?

Not disagreeing with the law being insane, but the difference there is that cab drivers drop you off / pick you up from a specific address. The other options are mass transport which takes you to the general area only, so they have no information where you're going.

The address can be across the street of the place you want to go, right? Same for the bus station. Not sure how taxis work in Texas, but in my country I can just tell the driver a street name and then where to stop, so the driver does not know where I am going.

I'm curious, though, can an Uber driver be sued if they happen to take a passenger to a school and the passenger commits a mass shooting?

How would the driver even know the women is pregnant or going to get an abortion? It's not like there are clinics that ONLY do abortions.

> How would the driver even know the women is pregnant or going to get an abortion? It's not like there are clinics that ONLY do abortions.

Ah, but that's the point. Any clinic that even thinks of performing an abortion will become a social pariah out of fear of repercussions.

See: people protesting around Planned Parenthood places.

Anyone can be sued for any infraction of the law, but to establish that a defendant is "aiding and abetting", it needs to be shown that the defendant was aware that the offense would be committed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting#United_Sta...

However, since this law leaves the defendant liable for legal fees, it could be used to financially harm any defendant whether or not the allegation has merit.

That's for a specific provision of criminal law, but SB8 creates a civil liability even when the person did not know that the abortion being performed is illegal:

“regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter”

Ah, thanks for the correction.

> Civil liability for aiding and abetting, however, represents a very underdeveloped theory within common law tort. Courts have stated, seemingly in jest, that precedents in this area of law are "largely confined to isolated acts of adolescents in rural society."

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

Looks like uncharted waters.

Don’t be ridiculous. The whole thing about this potentially causing problems for women going in for an innocent appointment is a smokescreen, just like using edge cases to justify abortion as a whole (the way to test this is to ask whether such a person would agree to restricting abortion to just those cases). The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure and simple. The thought-paralyzing “choice” rhetoric is wearing out and losing currency. Expect more to come. Pro-life sanctuary cities and towns are also making inroads.

> 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;

Anyone that "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion" is liably under this new law. That's a very broad statement that can easily target a lot of people.

> The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure and simple.

I haven't seen anyone deny that the main issue is unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. It's certainly valid to discuss the recklessness of the law's coercive mechanisms and their broader, negative side effects on unrelated groups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com