The Texas abortion law

[MeDotOrg]

It begins with prohibiting abortions after the 6th week of pregnancy, when most women don't know that they are pregnant. So it is a practical ban on most abortions. It does not have provisions for rape or incest.

But the part of the law that is incredible to me is that provision that allows anyone in the United States to sue anyone who aids in an abortion considered illegal by the state.

Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.

"These lawsuits are not against the women," says John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."

So we're not spying on you. We're just sitting up a tip line to monitor your actions...

I'm looking for a little legal feedback here, but if you pass a law that gives legal standing for people in other states to sue, why limit the practice to abortions? Why not give legal status to sue to anyone outside of your state to sue if someone violates the laws of your state?

I can imagine what the court system will look like in 5 years.

[Some Schmo]

Texas lawmakers believe in abortion. They abort all thought when attempting to make laws.

Texas is the kind of state that says you can't have an abortion, but you can shoot a home invader. So as I've said before, just wait to have the baby, then shoot it once it invades your home.

That's the pro-life solution in Texas.

[Chap]

In ancient Athens, prosecutions were all initiated by private individuals.

That's how Socrates ended up dead.


Criminal Procedure in Ancient Greece and the Trial of Socrates

In Athens, at the time of the trial of Socrates, there was no public prosecutor. Instead, judicial proceedings could be initiated by any citizen. In the case of Socrates, the proceedings began when Meletus, a poet, delivered an oral summons to Socrates in the presence of witnesses (or callers). The summons required Socrates to appear on a specified date before the legal magistrate, or King Archon, in a colonaded building called the Royal Stoa to answer charges of impiety. [Plato's Euthyphro takes place on the portico of the Royal Stoa where Socrates encounters Euthyphro, before he enters the building to answer Meletus's charges.] Once the Archon determined--after listening to Socrates and Meletus (and perhaps the other two accusers, Anytus and Lycon)--that the lawsuit was permissible under Athenian law, a date was set for the "preliminary hearing" (anakrisis) and terms for the hearing were posted as a public notice at the Royal Stoa.

The Preliminary Hearing (Anakrisis)

The preliminary hearing before the magistrate at the Royal Stoa began with the reading of the written charge by Socrates' accuser, Meletus. Socrates then formally answered the charge. Both the written charge and denial were then attested to by each, under oath, as being true. The next phase of the preliminary hearing was one of interrogation: the magistrate questioned both Meletus and Socrates, and then both the accuser and defendant were allowed to question each other. In the final phase of the hearing the magistrate, having found merit in the accusation against Socrates, drew up formal charges and set a date for a public trial.

The words of the charges against Socrates (relating to impiety and corruption of youth), preserved as a public document (antomosia), survived until at least the second century C.E., but were subsequently lost.

The Trial

The trial of Socrates took place over a nine-to-ten hour period in the People's Court, located in the agora, the civic center of Athens. The jury consisted of 500 male citizens over the age of thirty, chosen by lot from among volunteers. Athens used very large numbers of jurors, from 500 to as many as 1501, in part as a protection against bribes: who could afford to bribe 500 people? All jurors were required to swear by the gods of Zeus, Apollo, and Demeter the Heliastic Oath:

"I will cast my vote in consonance with the laws and decrees passed by the Assembly and by the Council, but, if there is no law, in consonance with my sense of what is most just, without favor or enmity. I will vote only on the matters raised in the charge, and I will listen impartially to the accusers and defenders alike."

Most of the jurors were probably farmers, as that was the principal occupation of the day. For their jury service they received payment of three obols. The jurors sat on wooden benches separated from spectators by some sort of barrier or railing. Given Socrates's fame and the notoriousness of the charge against him, the crowd of spectators was most likely large--including, of course, the most famous pupil of Socrates, Plato.

The trial began in the morning with the reading of the formal charges against Socrates by a herald. Few, if any, formal rules of evidence existed. The prosecution presented its case first. Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon had three hours, measured by a waterclock, to make their argument for a finding of guilt. Each accuser spoke from an elevated stage. No record of the prosecution's argument against Socrates survives.

Following the prosecution's case, Socrates had three hours to answer the charges. Although many written versions of the defense--or apology--of Socrates at one time circulated, only two have survived: one by Plato and another by Xenophon.

Following the arguments, the herald of the court called on the jurors to consider their decision. In Athens, jurors did not retire to a juryroom to deliberate--they made their decisions without discussion among themselves, based in large part on their own interpretations of the law. The 500 jurors voted on his guilt or innocence by dropping bronze ballot disks of the sort pictured above into marked urns. Only a majority vote was necessary for conviction. Four jurors were assigned the task of counting votes. In the case of Socrates, the jury found Socrates guilty on a relatively close vote of 280 to 220. (Interestingly, if less than 100 jurors voted for guilt, the accusers had to pay a fine to cover trial costs.)

If a defendant is convicted, the trial enters a second phase to set punishment. The prosecution and the defendant each propose a punishment and the jury chooses between the two punishment options presented to it. The range of possible punishments included death, imprisonment, loss of civil rights (i.e., the right to vote, the right to serve as a juror, the right to speak in the Assembly), exile, and fines. In the trial of Socrates, the principal accusers proposed the punishment of death. Socrates, if Plato's account is to be believed, proposed first the punishment--or, rather, the non-punishment--of free meals in the center of the city, then later the extremely modest fine of one mina of silver. Apparently finding Socrates' proposed punishment insultingly light, the jury voted for the prosecution's proposal of death by a larger margin than for conviction, 360 to 140.

The execution of Socrates was accomplished through the drinking of a cup of poison hemlock.

Historical Note

The first use of juries in Athens coincided with the founding of Athenian democracy in 590 B.C.E. A council ran both the government and the court system.

In 463 B.C.E., Pericles transferred power from the aristocrat-controlled courts--courts that had jealously protected private property rights--to people's courts. By all indications, the early Greeks were a litigious lot. Even Pericles found himself sued in a civil case.

When Rome captured Greece in 146 B.C.E., the use of people's courts came to an end.

[Doctor Steuss]

But the part of the law that is incredible to me is that provision that allows anyone in the United States to sue anyone who aids in an abortion considered illegal by the state.

Not to make light of the gravity of abortion, but to hopefully help me understand the part quoted above.

1. My state has a law against purchasing, and using explosives without a license.
2. I drive to another state, which has no such law, and buy some explosives and set them off (in a way that breaks no federal laws, or laws of the state I was visiting).
3. My neighbor finds out about my road trip, and sues the manufacture and distributer of the explosives in the other state.

Is this sort of what the Texas law allows/outlines?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. And now we know why Sen. Graham got behind Trump. Judge ACB for the win.

But, yes, Dr. Steuss, a bounty hunter doesn’t need any connection, whatsoever, to a woman to bring suit. They’d be entitled to $10k + legal fees. It’s a dream for bounty hunters because they can sue ANYONE who aided or abetted the woman in her quest to kill a future human. So, they could collect multiple judgements from multiple parties from the Uber driver who took the woman to her appointment, to a sister who provided emotional support. Abortionists would be, for obvious reasons, targeted for bounties.

- Doc

[MeDotOrg]

Tik Tok users are inundating the Tip Line with memes and porn.

Pro-choice users on TikTok and Reddit have launched a guerrilla effort to thwart Texas’s extreme new abortion law, flooding an online tip website that encourages people to report violators of the law with false reports, Shrek memes, and porn.

The law makes it illegal to help women in Texas access abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. To help enforce it, anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life established the digital tipline where people can send anonymous information about potential violations.

“Any Texan can bring a lawsuit against an abortionist or someone aiding and abetting an abortion after six weeks,” the website reads, and those proved to be violating the law can be fined a minimum of $10,000. An online form allows anyone to submit an anonymous “report” of someone illegally obtaining an abortion, including a section where images can be uploaded for proof.

Prior to the supreme court’s decision in Texas, Roe v Wade stopped laws that banned abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, generally regarded as 24 weeks.

Though the site was launched a month ago, the fake reports came flooding in on the eve of the bill’s enactment. One TikTok user said they had submitted 742 fake reports of the governor Greg Abbott getting illegal abortions.

In a tongue-in-cheek caption, the user encouraged others to do the same: “It would be a shame if TikTok crashed the ProLifeWhistleBlower website”.

Redditors said they had submitted reports blaming the state of Texas for facilitating abortions by having highways that allow people to travel to the procedure.

[Gunnar]

It seems like far right Republicans are trying their best to come up with the most extreme, anti-democratic, anti-science laws they can possibly get away with passing. With national polls consistently showing that as much as 70% of the population (including even 58% of Catholics) being pro-choice and against overturning Roe vs. Wade, how did it happen that so many anti-abortion extremists managed to get elected, even to the point of gaining a majority in some state legislatures? Why has it become so hard to vote these extremists out of office?

[Sledge]

Elsewhere someone said it didn’t take long for the Taliban to take over Texas.

[Gunnar]

Elsewhere someone said it didn’t take long for the Taliban to take over Texas.

Yeah! As if it wasn't bad enough already that the Taliban is taking over Afghanistan. I would say that a few other red states are becoming more Taliban-like too, especially Florida, currently. I wish I could see there was a growing outrage over this that would doom the Republican chances of retaking the Senate and the House next year. I don't want to live in a tyranny like Orbán's Hungary or Putin's Russia!

[Moksha]

That $10,000 snitch fee will turn Texans into a bunch of BYU students.