Hacker News Reader

Comment by zrail | Hacker News Reader

The problem with that is that "deter some people" is the whole point. This Wapo article goes into more detail but basically restrictions like these always fall disproportionately on historically disadvantaged groups.

So yeah if you have the money to take off work, fly to a state with legal abortion, get a hotel room for however long it takes to jump through their hoops, pay for the procedure itself, and then fly home, no problem I guess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-...

View on HN

Yep, I understand that deterring people is the main thing.But if you really need to get one, like in the case of r*pe or a medical emergency, there doesn't seem to be a better way. Unless the Federal govt. steps in. But that will take time, no doubt.

Plus there is some precedent for this in America itself, in a far different context. During the prohibition, people went on luxury liners that used to sail outside of the waters of the US so that they could legally drink alcohol in peace (those who could afford it). Hence the term booze cruise came into existence.

The law is unconstitutional and moronic for the reasons the article outlines.

That's not why it got passed. It's not always about race. It's so hard for HN to get that but here a lot of the most serious proponents of pro-life positions are conservatives....minorities tend to be socially conservative.

It's a moral position. I always see people on HN stake out positions as though the world existed as from their perspective. There are different views on this.

I've at times felt sympathetic to this argument (that the whole debate on abortion boils down to an appeal to morality). However, what ended up really clarifying things for me was hearing accounts of the lengths to which women used to go to abort pregnancies before abortion was legal (and therefore safe). It's simply a fact that women often do not want to carry pregnancies to term. That will not change if we outlaw abortion. You can moralize all day long but it doesn't matter. We can either have safe abortion or we can have abortion by douching with Lysol.

I'm not attempting to moralize.

What I am trying to say is it didn't pass here because it was trying to target any specific group, it passed here because people tend to be conservative and for them the moral position is to be against abortion.

Let's be real. It passed because the GOP has an unbreakable majority in the Texas Legislature and the Texas and national GOP wanted another test case to try to break Roe v Wade while there's a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

It's that and the GOP sees that very conservative government action is popular and you've got a bunch of people trying to angle for 2024.

But I promise you, the reason why that is possible is because the conservative morality is often pragmatic when it comes to money, however, there's enough pro-life belief across the spectrum that the average voter isn't that upset, regardless of gender, race, income, etc. These are the demographics.

If they just wanted a Roe test case they would have done a conventional ban. They didn't, they crafted the law to maximize the chilling effect on abortion provision even if it was later held unconstitutional by gaming the rules on preemptive review to avoid getting enjoined before being applied, so that the potential litigation burden would deter abortion and drive providers out of business before a court would block enforcement.

That's a very good point.

A) I didn't say anything about race. "Poor" is not a race.

B) The stats speak for themselves wrt who needs these procedures, regardless of your view.

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." - Joe Biden

He corrected himself in literally the next breath.

Your morality should have no impact on my morality, unless my actions directly effect you. For example I’m vegetarian for various reasons, but I don’t feel the need to prevent you and society from eating meat if you want.

Unconstitutional how?

It's the kind of thing that if used as precedent going forward turns into a mine field. It breaks federalism. It's something law the fugitive slave laws of the 1850s.

Protecting life breaks fugitive slave law? What? Which part of the Constitution is involved here?

It's more that the structure of the law is very similar to the fugitive slave laws, which were ruled unconstitutional.

Okay, I see now that Prigg v PA ruled that freeing slaves is tantamount to murder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com