# Texas Anti-abortion Law, Unintended consequences? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 5, 2021, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122 "2021-09-05T01:57:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/81 "2021-09-22T15:29:24Z")
There is possibly something else there, but how does that amount to aiding and abetting an abortion? What if the woman chooses to keep an unwanted pregnancy? His liability hinges on the purely volitional acts of another? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/82 "2021-09-22T16:02:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Seeing as how having the abortion is _entirely_ the woman’s choice–the father cannot force or veto an abortion—holding him liable is simply factually false in addition to not being a proximate cause. In Texas it no longer is the woman’s choice. At all. So please don’t frame it in those terms, thank you very much. You keep talking about responsibility, but it always comes down to the woman pays. If the man doesn’t want to cause an accidental pregnancy then he needs to take steps to prevent that - condoms, vasectomy, non-vaginal sex, abstinence… Otherwise, he needs to recognize that children is a possible consequence of having sex and accept responsibility for that. > [@UltraVires](#): > > There is possibly something else there, but how does that amount to aiding and abetting an abortion? What if the woman chooses to keep an unwanted pregnancy? His liability hinges on the purely volitional acts of another? The woman’s liability sure as heck hinges on that! Or are you claiming that all those men are now victims of rape? Worse yet when rape or incest is involved - in that case the act wasn’t volitional on her part at all, yet the volitional party can, in Texas, sue for visitation rights on the child he forced a woman to conceive. I’m tired of men whining about their “rights” and how oppressed they are and how unfair things are when making laws that can devastate the lives of women. Men are not oppressed. If they don’t want to father kids or be part of a situation where a fetus is aborted they can keep their dicks in their pants. When men force sex on women and that rape results in another human being not only should they NEVER have any claim of parental rights, they should have to pay the rest of their lives monetary damages to both the woman and the child. Men who commit incest on underage children or mentally disabled adults should lose all parental rights forever and ever as well as going to jail. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/83 "2021-09-22T16:10:04Z")
> [@DorkVader](#): > > The thought that’s been in my head since I first heard of this is that it will have some level of chilling effect on women’s health care in Texas generally Pretty cold already. > **[PolitiFact - Fact-checking how Texas ranks for children’s health in light of...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/08/occupy-democrats/post-critical-texas-health-rankings-half-correct/?fbclid=IwAR3uXkl0cWQ1h_rjRbkAc91i7x2EFgb5kciEwKapSRVtX5kM86ueUlZbgz0)** > > A new Texas law restricting abortion, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to let it take effect, have prompted wides According to this: Texas ranks 50th in uninsured women, ranks 44th in school funding per child, ranks 49th in prenatal care, ranked 34th in baby wellness checks, and ranks 40th in child hunger. Does Texas really care for the health of babies or women? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/84 "2021-09-22T16:10:29Z")
I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but none of what you said makes a man and woman’s decision to have voluntary sexual intercourse remotely proximate to the woman’s sole decision to later have an abortion. It is legally far too attenuated. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/85 "2021-09-22T16:11:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Does Texas really care for the health of babies or women? Only until the baby is born then they are on their own. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/86 "2021-09-22T16:15:43Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > They don’t need to win, they just need 1,000 people to file lawsuits against the Governor for his ‘role’ in assisting an abortion, and he’ll have to respond to 1,000 court dates. If he fails to show, he loses even if the suit is meritless. You don’t have to show up, your lawyer just files a motion dismissing. With the Governor, he has paid government attorneys to do that. This will not bother the Gov in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/87 "2021-09-22T16:29:54Z")
The paid govt attorneys are to cover him in his official capacities, not his private ones. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/88 "2021-09-22T16:30:29Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > In Texas it no longer is the woman’s choice. At all. I’m having trouble following your argument. If the woman did not choose to have the abortion there is no basis to sue the biological father for “aiding or abetting” an abortion. Therefore **SmartAleq** ’s unintended consequence falls apart… if women do not actually have abortions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/89 "2021-09-22T16:32:40Z")
Of course, you could always sue the father and claim that he gave her money that she used towards the abortion. Then he gets to prove a negative. Fun stuff that. “I overheard him say he’d pay for it.” That sounds like standing to sue, by Texas’s law, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/90 "2021-09-22T16:39:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > There is a concept in law call proximate cause. What you describe is so far removed from the decision to have an abortion as to make it not a cause at all. > > Seeing as how having the abortion is _entirely_ the woman’s choice–the father cannot force or veto an abortion—holding him liable is simply factually false in addition to not being a proximate cause. > > You might as well sue the friend that introduced the couple, or the friend’s mother for giving birth because but for those acts, they wouldn’t have had sex, and abortion wouldn’t be on the table. In a rational world this would be true. But the current Texas legal system is not such a rational world. If they can hold a person who drives a woman to a doctor’s office legally liable for an abortion, they could decide to hold the man who got her pregnant equally responsible if they wished. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/91 "2021-09-22T16:39:36Z")
If a woman flies out of Texas for an abortion, could the airline be sued? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/92 "2021-09-22T16:46:04Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Hell, a disgruntled patient could sue, falsely claiming that the doctor told her if she ever got “in trouble,” it could be taken care of in the office, with no one ever even knowing, and be billed to insurance as something else. I don’t think this would fly, even under the current law. I believe that there has to be an actual abortion to create grounds for a lawsuit not just the promise of one. If this was true, it would create an interesting scenario. Let’s say I’m in Texas and I recruit a pregnant woman. I send her around to twenty different doctors and she asks to schedule an abortion with each of them. I could then sue all twenty doctors for agreeing to perform an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/93 "2021-09-22T16:47:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If they can hold a person who drives a woman to a doctor’s office legally liable for an abortion, they could decide to hold the man who got her pregnant equally responsible if they wished. I doubt it. It would be a due process violation. On one hand, you cannot make the man powerless to stop it yet hold him liable when it happens. I agree that it is a shitty law in that it circumvents what are now considered to be constitutional rights. That is a bad law. But at least it puts people on notice of conduct that is prohibited. You cannot hold someone liable for a decision who by law cannot make that decision. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > If a woman flies out of Texas for an abortion, could the airline be sued? No. We’ve been over this in other threads. The consensus is that the law is fairly clear that out of state abortions are not covered under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/94 "2021-09-22T16:52:47Z")
Okay thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/95 "2021-09-22T16:55:14Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > No. We’ve been over this in other threads. The consensus is that the law is fairly clear that out of state abortions are not covered under the law. What if she flew from El Paso to Houston to obtain an abortion? That would seem to qualify the airline as having assisted the woman in obtaining an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/96 "2021-09-22T16:56:48Z")
Hmm. I think there is an intent element in the law. I suppose if she made it a point to tell the airline that she desperately needed an abortion flight so she could abortingly get an abortion, there might be something there. But in a normal situation, all the airline knows is that she is flying somewhere. > 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 Yes. “Knowingly.” Airline seems okay. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/97 "2021-09-22T17:00:36Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Hmm. I think there is an intent element in the law. I suppose if she made it a point to tell the airline that she desperately needed an abortion flight so she could abortingly get an abortion, there might be something there. But in a normal situation, all the airline knows is that she is flying somewhere. But doesn’t the law allow people to sue an Uber driver who delivers a woman to a clinic where she receives an abortion? I doubt most of those drivers are aware of why their passenger is going to a clinic. Or even that the address they delivered their passenger to was a clinic. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/98 "2021-09-22T17:00:40Z")
Unintended consequences: How about never mentioning the status of your uterus to anyone, anywhere, again? Will it become accepted that, once entering the state of Texas nobody ever uses certain words? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/99 "2021-09-22T17:03:07Z")
That’s one of the supposed horribles of the law, but I think the Uber driver would be tasked with slightly more knowledge by dropping a woman off at an abortion clinic versus an airline landing at an airport. But that would be an available defense. Again, it’s a shitty law. All disclaimers apply. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2021, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122/100 "2021-09-22T17:04:19Z")
What if the doctor, once sued, just says that the fetus was under six weeks old. Assuming it’s not available for examination, what’s the proof that it was not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-anti-abortion-law-unintended-consequences/950122.md?page=6)