[HN Gopher] Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texa...
___________________________________________________________________
Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
Author : neom
Score : 75 points
Date : 2021-09-04 20:19 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| skohan wrote:
| Maybe they could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a
| ballot measure to overturn it. It seems they had some success in
| the past with this.
| rqrast wrote:
| Why would Texas introduce this law when it helps Biden in a major
| way to suppress the bad Afghanistan press?
|
| Like clockwork, the outrage ball is now in the court of the
| Republicans again. I guess it's up to Biden again to do something
| bad to keep the theater going.
| goatherders wrote:
| The bad Afghan press will have absolutely zero impact on the
| midterms, much less the 2024 general. This is a MUCH more
| significant issue here at home. Easy decision for the press to
| move it to the front page.
|
| And Abbott is a terrible politician and knows that even
| moderates hate him. He's don't everything he can to get every
| Trump voter on his side.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| >Website hosting service GoDaddy Inc. on Friday, meanwhile, shut
| down a Texas anti-abortion website that allowed people to report
| suspected abortions.
|
| Assuming that it is legal to do what that website was doing, this
| is kind of becoming what people feared... tech companies deciding
| what laws are going to be upheld and what laws are not. Now you
| will have to align with the morality of the big corporations that
| dominate web hosting, even if what you're doing is 100% legal.
|
| Just thinking, what happens if their morality starts to diverge
| from the mainstream (at the moment mainstream opinion on abortion
| is opposed to bans and in favor of various restrictions beyond
| the 22 week point of viability, seems to be against this law as
| it is essentially a ban).
| _fat_santa wrote:
| This law is insane. So say I'm an Uber driver, woman gets into my
| car and I take her to Whole Foods for example. Two weeks later I
| get court papers saying that I'm getting sued for aiding in an
| abortion because the woman crossed the street and went to the
| abortion clinic instead of Whole Foods.
|
| I don't see how this could possibly hold up in court.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The law is not designed to hold up in court, it is designed to
| use the threat of private, ideologically motivated legal
| process that is doomed ultimately to fail once it gets into
| federal court to discourage abortion providers from providing
| service, which is why it was also carefully crafted to evade
| pre-enforcement review, which would have rendered such a
| blatantly unconstitutional law a non-problem.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| But most Uber drivers may not have the money to defend
| themselves properly in court, so it is a scare tactic.
| labster wrote:
| It doesn't have to hold up in court. If you are sued and get
| good representation, they just drop the case. You are not
| entitled to attorney's fees under the law. If you do not have
| good representation, they get a $10000 minimum award. Because
| there are thousands of officials who individually decide cases
| who don't work for the state government, you can't just sue the
| attorney general to stop enforcement. The law is designed so it
| doesn't have to hold up in court -- it's designed so that no
| one has standing to challenge it or authority to be challenged
| on it. No recourse equals maximum enforcement.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Technically speaking, the law says "knowingly engages in
| conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an
| abortion."
|
| Thus you have a case you didn't _knowingly_ do it. I 'm only
| speaking technically though.
| botwriter wrote:
| May be a fair few less lefties in Texas after this.
| goatherders wrote:
| Good. I live here and can't leave fast enough. This state is a
| mess.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I wonder if that's a partial goal of this law. Keep the state
| red and have those who are more liberal leave. Ensures a nice
| voting block for national elections and ensures local officials
| do not get voted out in the future.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| With such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be
| no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly
| blue and partly red on various topics). This is because none
| of the 2 sides are perfect and many people do not fall in one
| side. So what is the point?
| marcinzm wrote:
| This is a law in one state out of 50 so you have a decent
| choice of other options.
| version_five wrote:
| That's a failing of democracy isn't it. One optimum is to
| make it so the only people in your jurisdiction are those
| that all want the same thing. This is an argument for a
| strong constitution and court system and against direct
| democracy.
| flailingroof wrote:
| It's certainly a failing of the flawed US democracy, but
| fortunately there are much better ways to implement
| democracies.
| marcinzm wrote:
| They all have their flaws. Parliamentary democracies, for
| example, are susceptible to minority extreme views having
| massive weight if they are needed to keep a coalition in
| power. Direct democracies are the opposite with minority
| views being ignored.
|
| edit: Also, one needs to separate the impact of the
| democratic system from that of the social/cultural
| system. A country with a very homogenous population tends
| to have less issues under any system of government.
| flailingroof wrote:
| Yes, but "no perfect option" doesn't imply "no better
| option".
|
| I could also counter that the extra weight to "minority
| extreme views" is much less of an issue than most votes
| in most US states being meaningless because of the first
| past the post system on a state basis. But I don't really
| see this as a meaningful discussion, it's undebatable
| that the US system is flawed to the point where it can't
| be called a real democracy.
| [deleted]
| goatherders wrote:
| Yes. I literally drew the Texas congressional lines in 2000
| that set all this in motion and the primary goal of
| everything the state party does is to purge the state of
| people that don't vote Republican.
| labster wrote:
| What software did you use back then? How did the process
| change when they started using software as a tool to
| gerrymander?
| NotACop182 wrote:
| Whooo! Hold my beer! You literally were part of the group
| to draw the lines. Imagine looking back and seeing the
| damage it has caused in the long run. I couldn't even
| imagine.
| goatherders wrote:
| Yes. I was an intern for the ranking republican in the
| Texas state house (Tom craddick) at the time. I was the
| only person who knew how to use a computer at more than a
| basic level so I had my hand on the mouse as we used a
| brand new map program loaded with voter data. Others in
| the room at various points included Tom Delay, Mike
| Baselice (disgraced Trump consultant) Governor George W
| Bush, Ted Deleese, and some guy named Scott. But I'm
| being literal: I had my hand on the mouse and drew the
| map.
| xxpor wrote:
| Woah woah woah hold up. You're the person who actually drew
| the lines?
|
| Sorry if this is rude, but what the hell were you thinking?
| goatherders wrote:
| I was a 22 year old republican given something important
| to do. I had no idea at the time that we were setting the
| country on an irredeemable path. It was as exciting at
| the time as it is shameful now.
| kongin wrote:
| The Texas lines can be made so much more efficiently
| Republican: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-Y7crQo44
| alecst wrote:
| Wait what -- is this for real?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and
| fill him with a terrible resolve._ - apocryphally credited to
| Admiral Yamamoto
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Abbott is up for re-election in ~one year, though.
|
| Edit: this isn't to say Democrats will or won't win...but it's
| also not to say Abbott won't simply get primary'd out.
| justin66 wrote:
| > it's also not to say Abbott won't simply get primary'd out
|
| Is a newsworthy and heavy handed anti-abortion bill likely to
| make a republican governor more vulnerable to a primary
| challenge? _In Texas?_
| goatherders wrote:
| And if Beto will get out of the way and run for Lt Governor
| (where the real power is) so McCaughey can run for Governor
| we might turn things around
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Probably a good idea not to threaten to take guns away from
| Texans, if you want to hold public office in Texas.
|
| - A former Texan
| varelse wrote:
| Most of my family lives in Texas. They're appalled by
| this law. But yeah, don't go anywhere near their guns.
| They've literally called the cops on each other over
| their guns. They have assault rifles by their beds and
| vaults full of Zombie Apocalypse ammunition and they
| didn't think the sketch below was remotely funny...
|
| https://youtu.be/QHqB2t-DGb8
| chriak8292 wrote:
| Why is this relevant to Hacker News?
| orf wrote:
| Why isn't it?
| belltaco wrote:
| Yup, people could have startups on here that can be sued for
| aiding and abetting abortion patients and providers.
| goatherders wrote:
| Because someone submitted it and other people are commenting on
| it. Democracy in action.
| [deleted]
| trhway wrote:
| >The ban leaves enforcement up to individual citizens, enabling
| them to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion
| after six weeks.
|
| i'm kind of puzzled by that extension of legal standing to
| everybody. I mean anybody who notices say a woman losing a bit of
| weight and that basically allows to file a suit, trigger
| discovery, and now the woman should prove that it was just a
| morning exercises?
|
| It takes Neghbourhood Watch to new, medieval, heights so to
| speak.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > i'm kind of puzzled by that extension of legal standing to
| everybody
|
| It designed to maximize the legal threat surface for anyone
| connected to abortion while immunizing the law against the pre-
| enforcement review it would have been subject to had it been
| state-enforced.
|
| It's a study in how to design a law for maximum chilling effect
| when you know you have an ideologically supportive Supreme
| Court but one with enough respect for legal precedent that it
| is unlikely that they'd simply uphold a 6-week abortion ban.
|
| (Viewed another way, its a study in how to conduct an overt,
| brazen conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights
| under color of law and test whether the federal criminal laws
| against those mean anything.)
| beerandt wrote:
| A non-profit sued it's way to SCOTUS a few years ago in
| defense of frogs.
|
| Absurd arguments both for and against standing are hardly
| new, and most don't have statutory authority behind them.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Don't live in Texas so not really paying attention to this, but
| normally a lawsuit is filed when one has suffered a loss or
| harm. How does a third party claim any loss or harm giving him
| standing to sue in this situation?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Technically, there are some ways to demonstrate loss of harm.
| For example, imagine the father of the potential kid, not
| agreeing with the abortion, can make a reasonable claim.
|
| The abortion has this ugly side, the father has zero rights.
| This is why I cannot agree with any side, pro-abortionists
| are wrong in some points, pro-lifers are wrong in some points
| and there is no effort to make it right, from any side. Such
| laws are not making it right, they are just an abuse (or
| farce) of the judicial system.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| Does that imply that the fathers should be always
| financially liable for paying for the ongoing pregnancy or
| are you just speaking your mind without thinking of how
| that can affect women?
| fabian2k wrote:
| As far as I understand that's one of the more insane parts of
| this law. You don't need to show you suffered any harm or
| loss, absolutely anyone can sue under this law.
| philipov wrote:
| It's probably using some twisted justification like saying
| that abortions cause harm to society as a whole, and that
| gives any member of society standing.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| More like "I'll be sent to hell if _I_ don 't save a
| soul". It's all selfishly motivated.
| novok wrote:
| AFAIK that is the definition of a crime, and is enforced
| by the state accordingly.
| extropy wrote:
| So raising a child in very suboptimal conditions is high
| chance of child turning criminal later on. Or parents
| dropping put of school to provide for the child. It can
| well be argued both ways.
| thih9 wrote:
| This seems ridiculous, to the point that I feel like I'm
| missing something.
|
| Does that mean that multiple people can sue a single
| person?
|
| If the person proves that there was no abortion, who covers
| the legal fees?
|
| Would it be possible to bait people into suing, get
| expensive lawyers and then provide proof that there was no
| abortion?
| fabian2k wrote:
| Take this with a huge grain of salt as my information is
| mostly indirect and I'm certainly not a lawyer. But I've
| read that there is actually a provision in there that
| prevents the legal fees for the defendant to be covered
| even if they win.
|
| I suspect this will crash and burn not because it is
| insane, but because it's also a mess legally. But that
| will take time.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| > Does that mean that multiple people can sue a single
| person?
|
| Yes, the bill enables thousands of suits to be filed,
| even if frivolous, against abortion providers.
|
| > If the person proves that there was no abortion, who
| covers the legal fees?
|
| The bill explicitly covers the fees of the person
| bringing the suit, but provides no means for the person
| being sued to recover legal costs.
|
| The combination of these two facts means that operating a
| clinic that even is abortion adjacent will no longer be
| economically viable.
| fabian2k wrote:
| This law is quite insane, and it seems entirely rational to
| oppose your drivers being liable simply for driving woman to a
| clinic.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Correct, would they also sue bus drivers, train conductors and
| plane pilots? Do they need pregnancy tests for anyone taking a
| taxi?
| viraptor wrote:
| 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.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| 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.
| MisterSandman wrote:
| 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.
| commoner wrote:
| 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.
| paulgb wrote:
| 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"
| commoner wrote:
| 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.cg
| i?a...
|
| Looks like uncharted waters.
| paulgb wrote:
| > 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.
| bobthechef wrote:
| 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.
| fabian2k wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| cforrester wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| da39a3ee wrote:
| Might be nice to see major airlines, and airbnb (and competitors)
| offering free travel and accommodation to texan women traveling
| to other states for abortion-related procedures, and similar
| legal protection for participating airbnb hosts. Sure, it's
| partly lame for companies to take this as an opportunity for good
| PR, but free travel and accommodation might actually help, and it
| would be nice for republican texas to see how ostracized they
| are.
| [deleted]
| valeron102 wrote:
| Texas? Texas, USA? the land of the free... Are we going back on
| hunting witches?
| version_five wrote:
| As much as many people here won't like it, the lesson here is
| that there need to be strict limits on what kind of laws
| government is allowed to impose, period. You can't have some
| system where the government gets to have broad powers on things
| you agree with, but somehow isn't allowed to make laws about
| things you don't like. The only solution is being very narrow
| about what government can tell you to do. Personally, this law
| appears so ridiculous that I think existing checks and balances
| will have no problem rendering it irrelevant, but it should
| still be a warning about why government thinks it can impose on
| people.
| flailingroof wrote:
| That's usually what constitutions are for.
| labster wrote:
| They never hunted witches in Texas. Brujas maybe, but they
| definitely hunted Indians.
| m-ee wrote:
| Mexicans/Mexican Americans as well. The history of the Texas
| rangers is pretty sordid.
| pkulak wrote:
| Is standing just not a thing anymore?
| okareaman wrote:
| As a former Lyft/Uber driver I feel positive about this, but I'm
| still not risking it because they're not paying me for my time in
| court.
| belltaco wrote:
| > 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;
|
| Where is the line drawn? Can you sue govt officials for providing
| electricity and building roads to abortion clinics?
|
| What about Google Maps and Navigation for showing the clinic on
| the map and showing the directions? Google knows everything from
| your searches, browsing, emails, calls and texts that you're
| pregnant and going to get an abortion.
|
| Can you be or act pregnant and ask people nearby for directions
| to the abortion place and then sue them?
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| Definitely need to sue the head of the DOT for not removing all
| roads that help people get abortions, which is all roads that
| lead out of the state.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This law accomplishes a few things that people are missing:
|
| 1. A stark reminder that pro-lifers aren't giving up, and that
| 48 years of fighting later, they are stronger and getting
| stronger over time. And that the pro-abortion side should take
| notice.
|
| 2. A law that, even though it will almost inevitably fail, in
| the eyes of pro-lifers, several dozen children will be saved
| (due to inability to get abortions) and thus it is worth
| throwing the curveball regardless of the method.
|
| 3. A law that does a great job at getting pro-abortion women
| into placing blame on the Biden administration as inept and
| unable to stop Republicans effectively, hurting morale among
| his voter base, while boosting morale of Republicans to have
| gotten an even-temporary win after, what, 48 years of fighting?
| It can also be a political tactic.
|
| 4. Remember that ~50% of Republicans are women. This isn't all
| just angry men who like controlling women, and the pro-abortion
| side isn't very effective at reaching them.
| flailingroof wrote:
| 2. Or it will just cause the women to get abortions
| elsewhere, or let the kids grow up in homes that can't
| support them. Not to mention the extra loads of single moms
| (or dads). No one will be "saved".
|
| What it's more likely to accomplish is to make Texas even
| more republican, and to make the US appear even more crazy to
| the outside world.
| anonymousab wrote:
| > Or it will just cause the women to get abortions
| elsewhere
|
| Some will, but some won't or can't, and for many of the
| supporters of that law, any number >=1 is a success.
|
| > or let the kids grow up in homes that can't support them.
|
| The general argument at that point is that life/society is
| punishing the parents and family for being immoral or
| irresponsible, which is kept separate from the goal of
| saving lives/enforcing punishment by preventing abortion.
| In other words, the quality of those lives (or lack
| thereof) thereafter is seen an unrelated concern.
|
| > What it's more likely to accomplish is to make Texas even
| more republican
|
| I wouldn't say it's planned but I think Republicans are
| quite happy with an outcome that creates more Republicans.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Adoption is an option, and you have no idea who that child
| could become. Steve Jobs was given up for adoption because
| abortion wasn't legal at the time.
| cobalt wrote:
| what about the billions of people already on this planet
| who are not in such a lucky position?
| standardUser wrote:
| We also have no idea who the 15% of all pregnancies that
| end in miscarriages "could become" but we don't obsess
| over it because pregnancy never has been and never will
| be the guarantee of a fully formed independent human
| being. Not in humans, not in any species.
| all2 wrote:
| I have an inkling as to why this comment is being
| downvoted, but I'd love to see some actual responses to
| it that refute or at least engage with the claim that
| "adoption is an option".
| cforrester wrote:
| This shot across the bow certainly is a good reminder for
| advocates of abortion access rights not to become complacent,
| as progress can be undone. I'm hopeful that it can act as a
| catalyst for advocates in the region. Extremist actions like
| this often create new advocates, as well as drawing external
| attention. There are already groups mobilizing from without
| and within to help Texan women who want or need an abortion,
| and conversely, groups hoping to take advantage of this law
| to target those women for what I would consider to be legal
| harassment. It seems like more of a gamble than you might be
| thinking.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| You automatically assume abortion is progress.
| pkulak wrote:
| No one is pro abortion.
| standardUser wrote:
| I am pro-abortion.
| cforrester wrote:
| I don't understand business as well as I would like to, but I
| wonder if these companies are sensing how much trouble they'll
| have keeping drivers if they can become collateral damage in
| social oppression. I'm not used to seeing these taxi companies
| offer potentially a fortune's worth of services to any of their
| drivers, but this law is unusually reckless, even by (de facto)
| abortion ban standards.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-04 23:01 UTC)