So you try mitigate any backlash by making voting more difficult.
Do you support the new law?
WuWei: WorldWatcher:The intent is to bankrupt the clinics through defending the lawsuits.
Wonder where they got that idea?
Do you support the new law?
Which one?
Orygun:At this point it might be better to end it and allow the political ramifications to unfold.
This is where I am at. Let Republicans actually get what they want. I suspect it wonât end well for them, politically.
At this point, there is no âletâ about it. Now it is only delaying actions.
The problem as I see it, is that while the majority of Americans support access to abortion, it is not a single voting issue on the left as it is for the right.
Among its other provisions: The one that bans abortion as soon as cardiac activity is detectable, which is often before many people even know that they are pregnant; allows private citizens (with no connection to those whom they are suing) to sue anyone who they suspect has helped a woman get an abortion, including giving a ride or providing financial assistance.
The abortion law then. No, I donât.
The voting law, I do.
Do you support allowing people to sue gun manufacturers in cases of mass shootings? Or just shootings?
Do you support allowing people to sue gun manufacturers in cases of mass shootings? Or just shootings?
Letâs stay on topic please.
WuWei:Do you support allowing people to sue gun manufacturers in cases of mass shootings? Or just shootings?
Letâs stay on topic please.
It is on topic.
The abortion law then. No, I donât.
Why donât you support the new Texas abortion law?
WuWei:The abortion law then. No, I donât.
Why donât you support the new Texas abortion law?
Why would I?
The abortion law then. No, I donât.
The voting law, I do.
Do you support allowing people to sue gun manufacturers in cases of mass shootings? Or just shootings?
People AFFECTED by mass shooting? Or just any citizen?
WuWei:The abortion law then. No, I donât.
The voting law, I do.
Do you support allowing people to sue gun manufacturers in cases of mass shootings? Or just shootings?
People AFFECTED by mass shooting? Or just any citizen?
Either one. Hoplophobeâs choice.
I know the intent.
I want to know what made them think such an arrangement to allow ANYONE to sue would be constitutional.
Certainly it is in my opinion an abuse of the intent of the civil legal system in this country.
You sue when harm has been done TO YOU.
You donât get to sue anyone for any reason even if you have no interest or have been caused no harm.
You sue when harm has been done TO YOU.
Well thatâs not true. Hasnât been for quite some time.
Either one. Hoplophobeâs choice.
One is not equivalent to the abortion law being discussed, so not sure why you are bringing it up.
Would make for an interesting thread through.
I want to know what made them think such an arrangement to allow ANYONE to sue would be constitutional.
What in the Constitution would preclude it?
I donât in either case.
But at least a tortured case could be made for someone who had harm caused to them to sue (I donât believe that harm was caused by the gun manufacturer which is why I am against such laws).
But for sure if someone had no harm caused them in the mass shooting, they shouldnât be allowed to sue.
WuWei:Either one. Hoplophobeâs choice.
One is not equivalent to the abortion law being discussed, so not sure why you are bringing it up.
Would make for an interesting thread through.
The intent is the same.
The intent is to bankrupt the clinics through defending the lawsuits.
I agree with @WorldWatcher
JayJay:I want to know what made them think such an arrangement to allow ANYONE to sue would be constitutional.
What in the Constitution would preclude it?
The civil legal system is for redress of harm caused by one individual or group upon another.
Itâs intent was not to allow people to sue anyone for any reason whatsoever.
But at least a tortured case could be made for someone who had harm caused to them to sue (I donât believe that harm was caused by the gun manufacturer which is why I am against such laws).
No it canât.