ROE VS. WADE NO LONGER EXISTS IN TEXAS AS SUPREME COURT FAILS TO ACT,UPDATE:Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[Tito_Jackson]

You straight up copy and pasted, this from a USA Today May 24, 2019 article that pretty much regurgitated the same "stats" from a 1989 NYTimes article...

No. What I did was QUOTE the source in which USA Today reprinted the data.

This is a valid question and should be explored. However, I also believe that we should also explore the amount that is needed. For example an unborn child does not require the same financial support as a newborn. Also, if it is determined that the child doesn't belong to the father does the mother repay the money or go to jail?

Can I borrow this speech? I finna piss off my Playas and church goers at the Turkey Leg Hut with this and make it sound like a freestyle.

Have at it.

at what point does a person's personal choice becomes the state's , this ruling isnt about "abortion" , this abortion rights is the canary in the mine, also what u "feel" about abortion shouldnt be anybodies prerogative , same as gay marriage ,why do u think one group's moral choices should decide how another group's choices are implemented or not and whats the basis for the power ? religion ? becos if its the state's right to choose what becomes law based upon one group's "religious" morality at what point does that extend beyond "abortion " ?

its funny u ask "Why cant people accept that people have different opinions?"

obviously a woman's differing "opinion" about her own body shouldnt be accepted by the state, becos of how u "feel" about "abortion"(her body) based upon ur religious morality its the state's right to decide which differing opinion about a woman's body is acceptable or not

and also if that the case where u have state punishing even the uber driver who gives the woman a ride to teh abortion clinic, at what point does it also punish the co-conspirator of said pregnancy , the man who went raw in her?

What you are missing is that we elect these people. The majority of people in Texas obviously believe that abortion is immoral, so they vote people into power who operate with this understanding.

"The state" makes laws based off of morality and social norms all of the time. Weed is being legalized because it is no longer seen as immoral (and it generates money). Prostitution is illegal because most people see it as immoral. Different states have different age limits on consensual sex with adults. Why? Because they differ on what is deemed immoral. For example, Hawaii raised their age of consensual sex from 14 to 16 because of US pressure and social norm, but in their culture, it was seen as normal and even to this day, a 16 year old is seen as an adult in their culture. They are no less immoral or more than you and I. They just have different social norms.

As citizens, we agree with the social contract of the land. We do not have to like them. But, we do agree to accept them.

everyone doesn't subscribe to the same moral codes or philosophy.

again @Tito_Jackson r u okay with "insuring" the fetus ?

are u also okay with also penalizing the "co-conspirator" of said pregnancy or only the woman and her uber driver or anybody who knows and doesnt "report" to govt gets penalized ? but deff not the guy who went raw in her right?

If you are asking if a male was complicit in facilitating the abortion should he be punished as well, then yes, as well as the physician providing the service, if that is what the law says.

 

[mangobob79]

No. What I did was QUOTE the source in which USA Today reprinted the data.

This is a valid question and should be explored. However, I also believe that we should also explore the amount that is needed. For example an unborn child does not require the same financial support as a newborn. Also, if it is determined that the child doesn't belong to the father does the mother repay the money or go to jail?

Have at it.

What you are missing is that we elect these people. The majority of people in Texas obviously believe that abortion is immoral, so they vote people into power who operate with this understanding.

"The state" makes laws based off of morality and social norms all of the time. Weed is being legalized because it is no longer seen as immoral (and it generates money). Prostitution is illegal because most people see it as immoral. Different states have different age limits on consensual sex with adults. Why? Because they differ on what is deemed immoral. For example, Hawaii raised their age of consensual sex from 14 to 16 because of US pressure and social norm, but in their culture, it was seen as normal and even to this day, a 16 year old is seen as an adult in their culture. They are no less immoral or more than you and I. They just have different social norms.

As citizens, we agree with the social contract of the land. We do not have to like them. But, we do agree to accept them.

everyone doesn't subscribe to the same moral codes or philosophy.

If you are asking if a male was complicit in facilitating the abortion should he be punished as well, then yes, as well as the physician providing the service, if that is what the law says.

YOU CONVENIENTLY side stepped MY MAIN QUESTION !!!
the male co-conspirator(guy who went raw!) isnt getting penalized ! only the woman & her uber driver !! ( again ,r u fine with that?)

and no the fetus isnt taken care of , so what morality is involved?beocs teh fetus & woman carrying it isnt provided any assistance, becos soon a s the baby is born the woman & her baby can go to hell for all the state cares! so who is the law protecting again ?

and since "religious morality" is the barometer what happens to ppl who arent adherents to ur specific religion & its codes ,should they be forced to also follow UR set of religious code ? sharia much ?!
and when does it begin to apply to "religious ability to maim & disenfranchise black folk thru "lee atwater " tactics ?

 

[crossovernegro]

Drugs... yes, exactly.

Pedophilia (partaking in) is an awful analogy. A woman not being able to abort a pregnancy means that the state is forcing HER to carry a fetus until she delivers it or nature aborts it, even if she wants to abort long before it's viable outside HER womb. So a woman who is in a particular medical condition is prevented by law from attempting to change that medical condition affecting her own body. A person acting on pedophile urges is forcing themselves on a living child.

I can't think of any medical condition a man might find himself in that he could be punished for trying to get out of.

Many people do not support using drugs, is the answer, well they shouldn't use then.

Many people do not support pedophilia, is the answer, well then they shouldn't partake.

Not taking stance on an issue in many instances is worse than taking an adversarial position.

The fact is this, men have zero rights when it comes to reproduction and the birth of humans, despite contributing 50% of the DNA and the expectation to support the child whether or not they wanted the child. Our bizarre world has made it so that a person has more say regarding the pups from a dog than a human.

We have devalued human life to a point of no return.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

Drugs... yes, exactly.

Pedophilia (partaking in) is an awful analogy. A woman not being able to abort a pregnancy means that the state is forcing HER to carry a fetus until she delivers it or nature aborts it, even if she wants to abort long before it's viable outside HER womb. So a woman who is in a particular medical condition is prevented by law from attempting to change that medical condition affecting her own body. A person acting on pedophile urges is forcing themselves on a living child.

I can't think of any medical condition a man might find himself in that he could be punished for trying to get out of.

My brother, being pregnant and bringing forth life is not a "medical condition" as you put it.

Additionally, the idea of "viability" is a false argument in which no person can logically justify.

That argument is dismantled by the first general question: what is considered viable?

YOU CONVENIENTLY side stepped MY MAIN QUESTION !!!
the male co-conspirator(guy who went raw!) isnt getting penalized ! only the woman & her uber driver !! ( again ,r u fine with that?)

and no the fetus isnt taken care of , so what morality is involved?beocs teh fetus & woman carrying it isnt provided any assistance, becos soon a s the baby is born the woman & her baby can go to hell for all the state cares! so who is the law protecting again ?

and since "religious morality" is the barometer what happens to ppl who arent adherents to ur specific religion & its codes ,should they be forced to also follow UR set of religious code ? sharia much ?!
and when does it begin to apply to "religious ability to maim & disenfranchise black folk thru "lee atwater " tactics ?

The act of getting pregnant is not the issue. It's the result of the act. Such as buying a gun is not an issue. It's going out and killing someone. So no, in that case, the male is not culpable.

 

[woodchuck]

If we had the technology to have a dude carry the baby that the woman doesn't want carry, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

 

[BKF]

If we had the technology to have a dude carry the baby that the woman doesn't want carry, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

As I heard someone say on radio. If men having a vasectomy was outlawed.
There'd be problems for these politicians.

 

[mangobob79]

My brother, being pregnant and bringing forth life is not a "medical condition" as you put it.

Additionally, the idea of "viability" is a false argument in which no person can logically justify.

That argument is dismantled by the first general question: what is considered viable?


The act of getting pregnant is not the issue. It's the result of the act. Such as buying a gun is not an issue. It's going out and killing someone. So no, in that case, the male is not culpable.

thats a weird comparison !
guns & pregnancies are not the same !!
so u think u shouldnt be held culpable for pulling a trigger of a gun that kills someone just becos u didnt hold the gun!?

got it !
but the uber driver & the woman should be punished but not the guy who knowingly buss into her (pulled the trigger) Got It !!

 

[Tito_Jackson]

As I heard someone say on radio. If men having a vasectomy was outlawed.
There'd be problems for these politicians.

If we had the technology to have a dude carry the baby that the woman doesn't want carry, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

The major problem is the basic definition of life. Some of us believe that an embryo is a human being. Some of you do not. Some of us value the life of an embryo the same as we would a two year old and a 70 year old. All are human beings.

A woman should be able to do whatever she wants to do with her body. Just her body. Regarding the child inside her, she is the steward of another human being that can not fend for itself, this does not give her the right to terminate that person's life due to inconvenience.

Science is actively developing technology that will allow a fetus to be removed from mothers who do not want their children. This advancement in technology will allow humans to fully develop outside of the womb. This will prove to be a technological breakthrough that will lead to disastrous outcomes.

thats a weird comparison !
guns & pregnancies are not the same !!
so u think u shouldnt be held culpable for pulling a trigger of a gun that kills someone just becos u didnt hold the gun!?

got it !
but the uber driver & the woman should be punished but not the guy who knowingly buss into her (pulled the trigger) Got It !!

Selling someone a gun is not illegal. Getting a woman pregnant is not illegal. In many cases, shooting someone without just cause is illegal. In many states, abortion is illegal. My point, illegal acts can be manifested from legal actions.

So no, if a person legally sells someone a gun and the purchaser of the gun decides to commit a crime after the legal sale of the gun, then no, the seller of the gun is not culpable for the crime and should not be punished with the purchaser.

In this country, we have decided to strip all reproductive rights from fathers. Fathers have zero say on who gets born or not after conception. However, that father is expected to accept financial responsibility for the child if the woman chooses to keep the child. If the woman chooses to engage in an act that is deemed illegal by that state, i.e. abortion, then she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, along with the physician who performed the procedure.

Pro-Choice means that there is more than the choice of abortion. There are several other choices that could be exercised before the choice of death is selected.

 

[fonzerrillii]

What the hell is going on in here...

Again... You know that technically the guy can be sued with this law.... even if it comes out later that the dude had no idea that the woman had an abortion..

This is how bad the law is written

Because the law puts enforcement of it in the hands of the people .... ANY FUCKING PERSON.

The father will have to come to court and use as a defense that he didn't know she had an abortion ....


let me get out of this thread...

 

[Tito_Jackson]

What the hell is going on in here...

Again... You know that technically the guy can be sued with this law.... even if it comes out later that the dude had no idea that the woman had an abortion..

This is how bad the law is written

Because the law puts enforcement of it in the hands of the people .... ANY FUCKING PERSON.

The father will have to come to court and use as a defense that he didn't know she had an abortion ....


let me get out of this thread...

This is true. However, as stated previously, the male will not be culpable if he is found to not have contributed or facilitated the act. If he decides to pay for it or encourage it........his bad.

 

[Camille]

YOU CONVENIENTLY side stepped MY MAIN QUESTION !!!
the male co-conspirator(guy who went raw!) isnt getting penalized ! only the woman & her uber driver !! ( again ,r u fine with that?)

and no the fetus isnt taken care of , so what morality is involved?beocs teh fetus & woman carrying it isnt provided any assistance, becos soon a s the baby is born the woman & her baby can go to hell for all the state cares! so who is the law protecting again ?

and since "religious morality" is the barometer what happens to ppl who arent adherents to ur specific religion & its codes ,should they be forced to also follow UR set of religious code ? sharia much ?!
and when does it begin to apply to "religious ability to maim & disenfranchise black folk thru "lee atwater " tactics ?

All he would have to do is give her money for the abortion and they can sue him too.

 

[woodchuck]

All he would have to do is give her money for the abortion and they can sue him too.

Yep! If they can sue the Uber driver, they can damn sure get him!

 

[fonzerrillii]

This is true. However, as stated previously, the male will not be culpable if he is found to not have contributed or facilitated the act. If he decides to pay for it or encourage it........his bad.

The male is going to have to hire a lawyer and file a motion to dismiss him from court and state those reasons in his motion and have the Judge to grant his motion for him to not be culpable... All that is going to cost money. Court isn't free ... The guy can show up pro se and defend himself, but that means dude is going to miss a day of work... He doesn't show up or doesn't file a response then he is going to lose by default.

Since the law is civil that means any Joe Blow off of the streets can sue anybody that they feel is responsible for the abortion....

Also technically under this poorly written law.... the mother could move to add the Father as a Co-Defendant in her civil case... just like a Co-defendant could do in any civil suit.

Basically this law is going to be a fucking MESS!!! There is no way this law is going to stand.

The only reason it hasn't been denied is because of how it was written to specifically say that the State is not the enforcing body of this ban and the lawsuit lists a government official as the Defendant.

 

[fonzerrillii]

All he would have to do is give her money for the abortion and they can sue him too.

Technically he doesn't even have to do that...

This is the enforcement section of the law

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208

(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; or - This is the part
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2). - This is the part


So lets say..... I give the future mother of my child $600 dollars... She says she needs it for baby shit.
She uses it to get an abortion. I didn't know she was going to get an abortion...

According to the way this law is written.... I don't have to know she is going to get an abortion. I'm liable to be sued if I engaged in conduct that aided in the performance or inducement of an abortion. Doesn't matter if I knew or should have known.

 

[fonzerrillii]

The male is going to have to hire a lawyer and file a motion to dismiss him from court and state those reasons in his motion and have the Judge to grant his motion for him to not be culpable... All that is going to cost money. Court isn't free ... The guy can show up pro se and defend himself, but that means dude is going to miss a day of work... He doesn't show up or doesn't file a response then he is going to lose by default.

Since the law is civil that means any Joe Blow off of the streets can sue anybody that they feel is responsible for the abortion....

Also technically under this poorly written law.... the mother could move to add the Father as a Co-Defendant in her civil case... just like a Co-defendant could do in any civil suit.

Basically this law is going to be a fucking MESS!!! There is no way this law is going to stand.

The only reason it hasn't been denied is because of how it was written to specifically say that the State is not the enforcing body of this ban and the lawsuit lists a government official as the Defendant.

After further reading the law....

It looks like the Abortion Patients AKA the Mother can't be sued....

but basically everyone can. The Aiding and Abetting clause seems to say that.


YOoooooo this law is so Fucked!!

e) Notwithstanding any other law, the following are not a defense to an action brought under this section:(1) ignorance or mistake of law;(2) a defendant's belief that the requirements of this subchapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional;(3) a defendant's reliance on any court decision that has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision had not been overruled when the defendant engaged in conduct that violates this subchapter;(4) a defendant's reliance on any state or federal court decision that is not binding on the court in which the action has been brought;(5) non-mutual issue preclusion or non-mutual claim preclusion;(6) the consent of the unborn child's mother to the abortion; or(7) any claim that the enforcement of this subchapter or the imposition of civil liability against the defendant will violate the constitutional rights of third parties, except as provided by Section 171.209.

----- What the fuck!!

 

[mangobob79]

All he would have to do is give her money for the abortion and they can sue him too.

so he bares no culpability in the unintended pregnancy? he knowingly went raw

 

[Camille]

Technically he doesn't even have to do that...

This is the enforcement section of the law

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208

(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; or - This is the part
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2). - This is the part


So lets say..... I give the future mother of my child $600 dollars... She says she needs it for baby shit.
She uses it to get an abortion. I didn't know she was going to get an abortion...

According to the way this law is written.... I don't have to know she is going to get an abortion. I'm liable to be sued if I engaged in conduct that aided in the performance or inducement of an abortion. Doesn't matter if I knew or should have known.

Was ALEC involved with this? They have been quiet, but I think they are still in the shadows. I know a man was involved. An abusive one at that. Abusers and manipulators always like to see women isolated and cut off from help, support and lifelines to have control.

 

[Camille]

so he bares no culpability in the unintended pregnancy? he knowingly went raw

I think paying child support is the only penalty.

 

[geechiedan]

all this is gonna do is make neighboring states see an influx of people coming there to get abortions when needed.

 

[TEN]

 

[Tito_Jackson]

Technically he doesn't even have to do that...

This is the enforcement section of the law

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208

(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; or - This is the part
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2). - This is the part


So lets say..... I give the future mother of my child $600 dollars... She says she needs it for baby shit.
She uses it to get an abortion. I didn't know she was going to get an abortion...

According to the way this law is written.... I don't have to know she is going to get an abortion. I'm liable to be sued if I engaged in conduct that aided in the performance or inducement of an abortion. Doesn't matter if I knew or should have known.

This is not what it says. What it says is if you give her money for an abortion and did not know it was illegal, it does not matter. You are still liable and guilty as the mother.

I just called the State AG office in Austin to verify.

(512) 463-2100

But to your point, there is plenty of grey area room for misinterpretation.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

I think paying child support is the only penalty.

It is interesting that you and @mangobob79 consider paying child support a penalty.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

all this is gonna do is make neighboring states see an influx of people coming there to get abortions when needed.

True. This is not illegal.

 

[MistaPhantastic]

Here's a controversial opinion but an honest one:

I DON'T CARE.

I know you virtue-signaling social media cancel culture niggas feel the need to have an opinion on everything but I don't. I understand both sides and refuse to give a fuck.
There is nothing a font on a message board can do to change that. No "I bet if...blah, blah" made up ass circumstance can make me give a fuck, either.
Should women have say-so on their own bodies? Of course.
I don't have a dog in this fight...and that's okay.

 

[Camille]

It is interesting that you and @mangobob79 consider paying child support a penalty.

I don't consider it a penalty, but I've read enough BGOL comments over the years to know that the MENFOLK do. In fact they consider paying for dinner to get to know someone even a penalty and are salty about it if things don't work out for a while or they don't at least get their diq sucked. The only thing they want to spring for are condoms and I'm convinced 85% don't want to do that hence the RAWLIFE BGOL is known for.

 

[Camille]

Here's a controversial opinion but an honest one:

I DON'T CARE.

I know you virtue-signaling social media cancel culture niggas feel the need to have an opinion on everything but I don't. I understand both sides and refuse to give a fuck.
There is nothing a font on a message board can do to change that. No "I bet if...blah, blah" made up ass circumstance can make me give a fuck, either.
Should women have say-so on their own bodies? Of course.
I don't have a dog in this fight...and that's okay.

Do you live in Tx?

 

[BKF]

I don't consider it a penalty, but I've read enough BGOL comments over the years to know that the MENFOLK do. In fact they consider paying for dinner to get to know someone even a penalty and are salty about it if things don't work out for a while or they don't at least get their diq sucked. The only thing they want to spring for are condoms and I'm convinced 85% don't want to do that hence the RAWLIFE BGOL is known for.

 

[MistaPhantastic]

Do you live in Tx?

Nope.
It could be anywhere; it still wouldn't matter.
I don't have a vagina.
I guess the guys in Tx are gonna wonder why the women all-of-a-sudden are in shorter supply when a lot of them start moving away.

 

[lightbright]

Lyft And Uber Will Pay Drivers' Legal Fees If They're Sued Under Texas Abortion Law

Ride-hailing apps Lyft and Uber said they will cover all the legal fees of any of their drivers who are sued under Texas's restrictive new abortion law.

The law, which went into effect this week, bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. It lets private citizens sue anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion, including by providing a ride to a clinic. That's raised concerns that ride-hailing drivers could be sued simply for transporting passengers.

"Drivers are never responsible for monitoring where their riders go or why. Imagine being a driver and not knowing if you are breaking the law by giving someone a ride," Lyft said in a statement on Friday.

"Similarly, riders never have to justify, or even share, where they are going and why. Imagine being a pregnant woman trying to get to a healthcare appointment and not knowing if your driver will cancel on you for fear of breaking a law. Both are completely unacceptable."

The statement was signed by Lyft CEO Logan Green, President John Zimmer and General Counsel Kristin Sverchek.

Green described the law on Twitter as "an attack on women's access to healthcare and on their right to choose."

He said Lyft is also donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood "to ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access."

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said on Twitter that Uber would follow Lyft's lead.

"Team @Uber is in too and will cover legal fees in the same way. Thanks for the push," he wrote, quoting Green's announcement of Lyft's driver defense fund.

The Texas-based dating app Bumble said this week it's creating a fund to support reproductive rights and help people seeking abortions in the state. The CEO of Match, which owns dating apps including Tinder and is also based in Texas, said she would personally create a fund to help employees and their dependents who are affected by the law.


Lyft And Uber Will Pay Drivers' Legal Fees If They're Sued Under Texas Abortion Law : NPR

 

[Camille]

Nope.
It could be anywhere; it still wouldn't matter.
I don't have a vagina.
I guess the guys in Tx are gonna wonder why the women all-of-a-sudden are in shorter supply when a lot of them start moving away.

If you are not out here raw dogging folks, than it may never affect you directly. However, should something like this come to your area and a female relative gets raped or molested and ends up pregnant, it can affect your entire family and the family dynamics if she is forced to raise a child and every time she looks in their face she sees the image of her rapist. Do other family members step in to raise the child? If she is under age what about schooling? That's time off school or work, medical bills, even if she gives the child up for adoption. Or a male relative gets someone pregnant and then gets sued etc.

There are other things such as the price society as a whole pays when dealing potentially with taxes and support, public assistance, crime etc, but I'm tired and don't feel like discussing this right now, and as you said, you don't care about what if scenarios anyway.

Personally, I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare. With all the education and birth control out there, it shouldn't even be necessary. I'd prefer to see family raise a child or have the child given up for adoption. However I think the choice should be there for the mother if she wants it, and it should be a private decision.

A lot of these anti abortion folks aren't worried about the child tho. Some want to control and punish women for premarital sex. Some are worried about the white birth rate and white folks becoming a minority. Some don't care one way or another, they just want to use it as a political weapon. Often the same ones against abortion are against sex education and contraception that could prevent pregnancy. Obamacare resulted in fewer abortions, but they wanted to revoke that and not have to pay for birth control. That is how you know they are full of ish. It's not about the baby, its about control.

 

[praetor]

 

[lightbright]

TEXAS JUDGE ISSUES TEMP ORDER PREVENTING ANTI-ABORTION GROUP FROM SUING PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTION PROVIDERS UNDER NEW LAW

SOURCE: CNN

 

[mangobob79]

It is interesting that you and @mangobob79 consider paying child support a penalty.

where did i suggest paying chid support is a penalty? ! pls show me ! or u just like creating bs arguments and trying to pass them off as "logical issues" until it isnt and it becomes "morality" issue ?

 

[mangobob79]

Lyft And Uber Will Pay Drivers' Legal Fees If They're Sued Under Texas Abortion Law

Ride-hailing apps Lyft and Uber said they will cover all the legal fees of any of their drivers who are sued under Texas's restrictive new abortion law.

The law, which went into effect this week, bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. It lets private citizens sue anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion, including by providing a ride to a clinic. That's raised concerns that ride-hailing drivers could be sued simply for transporting passengers.

"Drivers are never responsible for monitoring where their riders go or why. Imagine being a driver and not knowing if you are breaking the law by giving someone a ride," Lyft said in a statement on Friday.

"Similarly, riders never have to justify, or even share, where they are going and why. Imagine being a pregnant woman trying to get to a healthcare appointment and not knowing if your driver will cancel on you for fear of breaking a law. Both are completely unacceptable."

The statement was signed by Lyft CEO Logan Green, President John Zimmer and General Counsel Kristin Sverchek.

Green described the law on Twitter as "an attack on women's access to healthcare and on their right to choose."

He said Lyft is also donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood "to ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access."

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said on Twitter that Uber would follow Lyft's lead.

"Team @Uber is in too and will cover legal fees in the same way. Thanks for the push," he wrote, quoting Green's announcement of Lyft's driver defense fund.

The Texas-based dating app Bumble said this week it's creating a fund to support reproductive rights and help people seeking abortions in the state. The CEO of Match, which owns dating apps including Tinder and is also based in Texas, said she would personally create a fund to help employees and their dependents who are affected by the law.


Lyft And Uber Will Pay Drivers' Legal Fees If They're Sued Under Texas Abortion Law : NPR

@Tito_Jackson u somehow never want to comment on the UBEr drivers getting penalized

 

[king reckless]

Oddly enough, I'm not against this backwards ruling. It should pressure women to be less reckless, pun intended, with their bodies. If you're fucking a broke and ugly dude cause you're horny, protect yourself.