I said tortured case, but I wouldn’t agree with the tortured logic.
Nothing?
No, it can’t. There is no case at all there.
I don’t see how ANYONE could sue a gun manufacturer for a mass shooting.
I could maybe see someone affected by it, but they would lose and I wouldn’t support the effort - you know, short of some gross negligence, which I really can’t fathom…
I don’t think passing laws to allow such suits is the way to deal with mass shootings or gun deaths.
6 weeks is not a ban, I personally would make it no longer than 12 weeks which is what the majority of Europe is. Anything else is cruel.
Sound familiar?
Why can’t you sue the person getting the abortion? The actual “killer”.
1 Like
Who actually kills the child?
If you hire someone to kill your child, you’re not culpable?
There is a slight difference between states suing and private citizens, isn’t there?
Sure, of conspiracy to murder.
1 Like
No.
…
The unintended consequences of this type of laws would be devastating. The procedures it sets can destroy our capitalist society.
It’s dangerous IMO.
1 Like
So you can sue the “hit man” but not the “person who ordered the hit”?
One of my many objections. Who commits the murder?
With the “clinics going bankrupt” issue, I don’t see how that would be possible if abortions are a small fraction of the services they provide, as people here have said in the past.
They would get a loss in revenue, but it wouldn’t be that big of a loss, right?
2 Likes
I dont think most people are concerned with the fiscal health of clinics. They are seeing how abortion is effectively banned for women wanting access.
Yup….
Which would be the person performing an abortion.
