IANAL yet (hopefully soon), but I did read the law, and it clearly is concerned only with immigration into Texas from another country. This law is bullshit, and in my opinion unconstitutional, but it could not be used to prosecute a woman leaving the state to get an abortion.
Because the law in question gives them jurisdiction. That itself is probably unconstitutional, but this is yet another law where they’re attempting to circumvent issues like that by providing for civil enforcement instead of criminal enforcement. Just like the backdoor abortion ban they passed before Dobbs that everyone warned was setting a dangerous precedent through the civil enforcement provisions. In other words, rather than providing for criminal penalties for violating the law, the law allows any private citizen to sue and recover damages if any law enforcement officer or elected official refuses to comply with the law. Even if that refusal is because of their own departmental policy or because of federal law.
Not to get us too off topic, but can you hum a few more bars about that? I’m familiar with the broad strokes, how they’re making thing “criminal” without having to make them legally criminal, I think?
But what does that mean more generally in terms of being able to criminalize things in principle without going through whatever processes are needed to make things the “other” kind of crime?
I guess what I’m curious about and grateful if you have time to answer is, why are they taking this tack? Which barriers are they circumventing?
(No pressure, though. I know you’re busy.)
Due process, mainly. Civil lawsuits by private citizens get around the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, because they’re not state action. They’re actions by private citizens. Texas did this with its backdoor abortion ban, enacted before the Dobbs decision. Roe v. Wade was based largely on substantive due process, and it said states couldn’t ban abortion without violating due process. So Texas bans abortion anyway, but they do it in a weird way. They didn’t include any criminal penalties for either the person receiving the abortion or performing it. Instead, they allowed for the creation of a private right of action, allowing any citizen to sue anyone who performed an abortion or assisted anyone in receiving an abortion and recover damages. So, it makes it difficult to sue the state of Texas over that law, because they aren’t the party of record in any action. They weren’t going to be arresting anyone who got an abortion, so basically, no one affected by that law had standing to sue the state. And while that law became moot when Dobbs was decided, Texas and other states are pulling this shit left and right now, and a lot of people warned about this. Some in blue states are talking about passing backdoor gun bans using the same method. It’s going to result in chaos. At some point, either Congress is going to have to get involved and pass a law banning such laws, or SCOTUS is going to have to step in and put a stop to it. It’s bullshit legal maneuvering through weird legal technicalities, and it’s clearly not how any of this was meant to work.
It confuses lawyers who deal with law interpretation and legal standing too. Like, when the Texas back door abortion ban was working it’s way thru the legislature a lot of very smart lawyers really thought “this is just too crazy. It won’t pass. And if it does pass, the courts will not put up with this bullshit dodge on standing.”
Also, @danimagoo is awesome. I couldn’t have explained it better even without this headache I’m fighting.
I should probably log out
Edited: particularly when you.probably don’t know what lege means. It’s lawyer slang
And also, not to paint with too broad a brush, but any guy who is asking that question most likely isn’t equipped or prepared to play any of the other roles expected of a dinner/date companion, such as being an engaging and delightful conversationalist, a good listener, etc.
No, you don’t have to pay for the meal, but even if you do, recognize that according to this calculus you’re expecting the female to not only look great, smell great, show up on time and be a pleasant companion, you’re also expecting sexual favors.
What are you bringing to the table, dude, apart from your wallet?
Christ. I’m so glad we get to earn our own money here these days.
I’m guessing men who think that way would also be horrified at the idea of the woman paying for the date. They’d find it emasculating and worry what would be expected of them in return.
It only recently dawned on me that some men don’t want women to have any source of income or rights of their own because that’s all they personally can bring to the table is their ability to earn money.
In the past, it seems like many men only had wives/lovers because women had such fucking limited options for survival.
Exactly. And the only way it keeps working for them is if we women can’t earn money.
Personally, I think that’s a huge part of the “male crisis” we’re seeing. It’s taking generations to shake out, but men have gone from basically being guaranteed some level of female companionship simply due to the fact that we were reliant on men for almost all finances, to being asked to bring more to the table, like being connected, engaging, interested and interesting, contributing to the social fabric of the household, etc.
Might sound cold, but I can earn my own living, dudes. How is having you in my life an improvement?
This notion leads to a meltdown in certain menfolk.
And those are the same ones that should really and truly rethink their life choices. If the only way you can attract a woman is by making the choice “me or starvation,” you are not nearly the alpha you think you are. Of course, they never really are, are they? Any man who has to keep insisting just how “alpha” he is, isn’t. It’s just that simple.
