Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

I think everyone should take a step back and breathe.

If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.

Frankly, if you need an abortion you can go to another state. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country. Apple could literally offer flights to California for any medical procedure no questions asked and problem solved.

I also don’t see Apple as having the moral high ground here. They employ slaves in China. Apple respects the Chinese government and says nothing. They’re sterilizing people, organ harvesting on live people (Christians and Muslims) in China. But this... this is what people care about?

But... is that what’s this really about?

I don’t think so.

View on HN

Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play.

Additionally, Apple does not determine the law. If legislature responds to Apple, that would be due to the structural aspects of democratic government, in other words, the voters want something and will place pressure during elections. And Apple is just one of the many big companies in TX.

> Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play.

The statute is blatantly unconstitutional, and Apple has enough high-powered lawyers to fight any lawsuits.

I don't think that's clear. I am curious to see how this will be handled by the supreme court.

This methods used were actually similar to the way the old police system worked. They'd put out bounties and citizens would bring people in.

Can you think of any reasons why we moved away from that model?

I can think of plenty of reasons why a police force could be advantageous, but my point was constitutionality. I don't believe it's unconstitutional.

For reference, bail and repos are done in a similar manner and are way more intrusive (taking someones car). I don't really see your point? In this case, someone is merely sued for $10k (as opposed to jail or losing license).

> Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion.

That's fair, I was trying to indicate they could offer all expense paid flights to Cali any time to headquarters or something. Don't ask why, don't even make it related to medical.

I personally have flown to other states & countries for medical procedures. Further, there's a boat load of other methods of mitigating the need for abortions within the law.

It's insane to me that Apple, a business, should apply pressure.

The subject of the law (reproductive rights) is only part of the issue. The implementation is also sets an extremely problematic precedent. They basically hacked a way around any sort of judicial review by turning the citizenry into bounty hunters.

Here's a good video about the subject: https://youtu.be/PnO7pL-QWyc

> The implementation is also sets an extremely problematic precedent

I'm pretty sure this is how the old policing system worked in the U.S. they would set bounties and citizens would bring people in.

In this case, I'm 99% confident it'll be deemed constitutional and isn't really a problem.

States can do what they want, it's extremely problematic that people in other states feel they should apply pressure on people thousands of miles away.

You are applying pressure just as much as anyone that argues against the Texas law, insisting that people should follow your preferences for how the government is organized rather than speaking their minds.

It's incoherent.

> It's incoherent.

I'm pointing out that you everyone should really be focused on local politics. And suggesting the bullies who disagree should leave Texans alone.

This law does almost no damage and from the majority of Texas perspective it's a net positive. I don't see why anyone, especially Apple, should be applying pressure externally.

It's not our job to question it? If you are a citizen of the US and this law is going through the federal court system and potentially setting precedent for the entire country - it absolutely matters. And we should question it. We should also question it because it's impacting the lives of people. Texas's local government is poorly run by people like Ken Paxton who is under indictment and also tried to assist Trump in stealing the US election. This impacts all Americans (and the world given the outsize influence of the US on global politics).

Saying Apple does bad things elsewhere doesn't make this a non issue. People criticize Apple for these issues and rightly so. Apple criticizing Texas over these issues doesn't change the reality about the issues in Texas.

Apple and everyone else should be criticizing Texas.

> It's not our job to question it?

I don't care if people discuss at all, but take a moment to think about what you're actually questioning.

You're questioning the choices of the people of another sovereign state. Not only that, but your advocating that because the people of that state believe your killing babies with a heart beat... they should be punished by Apple? a phone manufacturer? By the way, this phone manufacturer literally uses slave labor of Christians and Muslims in China.

If you want to have a discussion, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's really what most people want here. I think they want fascism. Effectively a corporation enacting on a political ideologies behalf. That's dangerous and will lead to massive conflict.

In reality, the people of Texas have the right (via the constitution and state government) and through their representatives, to say they don't think it's okay to kill babies with a heart beat. Imagine if oil companies stopped providing oil to California

Texas is part of the United States. Of which, I am a citizen. I am free to question their decisions when they impact the whole of the country. The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. And somehow you think I shouldn't have a right to question their decisions when they get pushed up to the Supreme Court and potentially be applied across the entire country? No. Sorry. No.

If we give companies the power the lobby and push agenda, then yes, I think Apple should be allowed to push social agendas and punish Texas for enacting draconian laws that are designed to hurt women and set the country back decades. Apples actions here and what they do in China can both exist and don't make one action OK because the other is NOT OK. Or are you going to say only the perfect moral entity can have an opinion on any topic? Because there will always be some moral critique of anyone who says anything.

If we are going to let people subject their ridiculous religious beliefs despite the supposed separation of church and state, what's the difference with letting companies? It's just another organized group with lots of money. Why let one get away with it and restrict the other?

Personally, I'd like to see religious groups lose any tax benefit if they participate in politics. I'd also like to see Citizens United overturned and get corporate money out of politics. But given the status quo, if corporations want to fight the religious right pushing their anti-women agenda? It's better than saying 'companies shouldn't be involved in politics.'

By your own argument, companies have the right to not employ people in a State that is pushing an agenda against a protected class of people. The current set of laws says this is OK, ergo, Apple has the right to do it. This is the same logic that the people of Texas have the right to enact a draconian anti abortion bill. The rest of the country, people and companies, have the right to say fuck off and try to change the law.

> The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win.

Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees.

This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no?

Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that.

Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected.

I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous.

Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street.

I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.

For someone who preaches about we shouldn't be trying to harm those of a different ideology, you're trying to justify the oppression of women that's coming from a mostly religious perspective. Exactly the thing you're saying you're against. The can of worms has been open for generations and they are trying to hurt large swathes of people they don't like for ideological reasons.

> It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country.

This is the kind of privileged naivete I come to HN for. The cost of an airplane ticket isn't the only cost to travel out of state for a medical procedure. At a bare minimum you also have to consider the person's time and that many people don't have flexible enough employment to take time off for something like this.

Most businesses would let you go I'd think, use PTO if needed, plus there's funding for travel and board if you qualify financially.

One third of US workers don't have any paid time off.

https://qz.com/1702181/a-third-of-americans-dont-get-paid-va...

It wouldn't even be one plane ticket: someone should probably accompany the person getting an abortion, as they will be recovering from being sedating after the procedure (they shouldn't even drive for a whole 24 hours!) They'll be directed to rest, so booking a hotel for the night is preferred over hopping on a return flight. The "$200 plane ticket" estimate costs for an out-of-state abortion is so off: easily it is 3x: another ticket for the one accompanying and hotel costs.

Frontier is currently $50 per person for a roundtrip from Dallas to Denver. Hotel is about $80 night.

If you qualify financially, there is a program that helps you pay for travel and board as well as the procedure if you need it.

(the procedure is about $650 which is the bulk of the expense)

I'm going to rewrite your first paragraphs in a way that hopefully clarifies it:

> If the people and government of Texas feel that way about {white lunch counters, segregated schools, sodomy laws}, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.

> Frankly, if you need {to eat lunch, go to school, fuck your boyfriend} you can go to another {restaurant, school, state}. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country.

As to the whataboutism regarding China, I don't like that either! But it's never going to be useful to demand ideological consistency or purity from my allies when advocating for any one particular cause. Lots of 60s civil rights campaigners also hated gays, lots of pro-choice proponents are also anti-trans, and lots of EFF-style activists are also climate change deniers. If you draw enough boundaries around what you consider an acceptable ally in any given fight, you'll find yourself fighting alone.

Apple may not be on the moral high ground WRT China, but that doesn't mean they can't be on this issue. I don't think discussing this in terms of "moral high grounds" is really useful, though. I'm fine if Apple's motivation is just virtue signalling. As long as it leads somewhere.

>>If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.

Most people in Texas don't want this insane law either, but gerrymandering diminishes their voices.

edit: downvoters should explain why they are downvoting :)

As a Texan, I don't agree. I feel like out of the few blue cities most people were happy all around with the bill.

Are you Texan, or do you have a source for your statement?

This is all so reactionary. As GP pointed out, Apple is fine with a China presence while they sterilize Uighurs and harvest organs.

>> Are you Texan, or do you have a source for your statement?

I live in Texas, yes.

Here you go: https://avowtexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EMBARGO4-29...

Questions 5 through 8 are related to this abortion law.

It's dishonest to offer that up as some kind of objective measure of public opinion on the law. An obvious partisan survey [1], just look at the questions:

> Texas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and laws could get even more restrictive due to the makeup of the current U.S. Supreme Court. Generally speaking, do you think that laws regarding abortion access in Texas should be more restrictive, less restrictive, or kept the same as current state law?

We used to call that a leading question.

The Texas legislature voted this into law with a sizeable majority. If the large majority of people are against this law, they should organize, vote new people in, and have it overturned.

The problem with liberals is they're just terrible politicians. Everything is an appeal to the courts or their mega-corporate employers to help establish agendas instead of doing the only thing that works: getting bills signed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, nothing you said is wrong. Anyone care to dispute what he said instead of just downvoting?

I am not living in Texas/US, but believe that babies of any age in mother's womb should have 100% protection – as far as humanly possible. If Apple listens to the author's advice: "move your business out of Texas" – a democratically chosen government that chooses to protect life – I will also move my business out of Apple.

I find it disturbing that so many people only think about mothers right to abortion, and have no qualms whatsoever about taking the life of perfectly formed humans and destroying the life they would/could have been living . . .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com