Reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Every day it becomes more & more obvious these fuckers have less than no abilitiy to ‘lead’, & they are only interested in Power…
but nevertheless, here they are in power… impervious to removal for all intents & purposes.
3 Likes
There’s likely a significant portion of anti-choicers who are pushing their agenda not only to “save the unborn” bit also to spark a new civil war to bring about Gilead. Not being about book-larnin’, these Xtianists haven’t studied the history of how that strategy worked out for white supremacists during the Civil Rights era.
5 Likes
Oh, hell no! Book larnin’ makes you gay, and communist, and, worst of all, liberal. Burn all them not-the-Bible books of evil! Burn!!!
(ummm, shouldn’t be necessary, but /s)
5 Likes
I’d like them to be clearer about their intent. But in the invocation of the FACE act suggests an intent to prosecute people under that act. Construing launching a lawsuit with physically barring someone from entering a clinic is a stretch, but construing launching a lawsuit with intentionally damaging the property of a clinic doesn’t seem like a big stretch at all to me. A $10k bounty isn’t very appealing if seeking it subjects you to a $10k fine and up to 6 months in prison.
It’d be nice if they said this explicitly, though.
8 Likes
I just don’t see how the FACE act even could apply, as it’s specifically about threats of violence, property damage and physical obstruction of facilities. I don’t know how the federal government inserts themselves into a lawsuit, and even if they’re interpreting it such that they prosecute people for the lawsuit after the fact, I’m not sure how much it changes things.
The person suing breaks even financially after the federal penalties, faces potentially a few months in jail, but they’ve also cost their target legal fees, which is how the Texas law really does its damage. As long as enough people around the country are willing to (potentially) do a few months in jail in exchange for causing financial damage in the form of legal fees to an abortion provider, people can organize a dog-pile on an abortion target and drive them from the state. Just the threat of doing so would be enough.
Plus, I imagine that since the Texas law is enforced via lawsuits, the entity suing doesn’t have to be a human being, it can be an organization. So they can’t be jailed - the worst that happens is that they might not break even every time they go after someone, if they fail in their lawsuit and the federal government goes after them.
I think they’re not being explicit about how this is going to work because they have no idea/it’s just empty posturing.
1 Like
I don’t think they are really powerless, but I think you are probably right. I can think of remedies for all of that, from using civil forfeiture to seize proceeds of lawsuits to regarding organizations that launch suits as criminal organizations to arresting lawyers who represent people in the suits. But I don’t think they are going to do any of that.
5 Likes
You could form an organization purely for the purpose of these kinds of lawsuits, in which case it wouldn’t have any assets to seize, but I don’t really see the federal government trying to stretch the FACE act to do any of that either.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
