1078
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/news@lemmy.world

Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday's meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a "Sanctuary County for the Unborn."

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas' existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Coffeemonkepants@lemmy.world 281 points 1 year ago

This is incredibly fucked up. Handmaid's tale was a documentary.

[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 147 points 1 year ago

Get ready for highway checkpoints for pregnant women, coming to a red state near you.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago

"I noticed your had a license plate light out, Ma'am. Please get out of the car and pee on this test strip."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

Atwood specifically called it speculative fiction, because everything written in there had happened already in some other form.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 197 points 1 year ago

How tf would they even enforce this?

“Are you traveling to get an abortion?” “No, I’m going to visit family”

How would they prove otherwise? Is there something I’m missing?

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 161 points 1 year ago

The correct answer is “I don’t want to talk about my day.”

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago

"Go f*ck yourself" is also an acceptable answer.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Good luck and godspeed using that approach with a rural county sheriff's office in Texas. No, they cannot enforce this, and you should probably just politely deflect the question and gtfo

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] TimLovesTech@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 year ago

" Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If detained "then you shut the fuck up!"

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Feddyteddy 108 points 1 year ago

You're missing the right to privacy in your phone. Make sure you didn't put the clinic into Google maps or make a call to them ahead of time. Governmental AI is on the way and it will be steered by the same people making these rules.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just keep a strong password on your phone, and disable biometrics if you're travelling for abortion.

They can't compel the password out of you, but they can compel a finger print, or pointing it at your face unlock.

[-] quantumriff@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

You should look up geofence warrants, that are now very, very common.

They can subpoena google or apple for anyone traveling through their jurisdiction to specific areas.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 59 points 1 year ago

It basically gives them an excuse to detain any woman they want, which is the purpose.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 57 points 1 year ago

LEAs have been shown to actively track women who use search engines or messaging services to seek information about abortion services. There's a non-zero chance that women who they suspect, and their friends and family, are tagged in their system when they search the plates of someone passing by.

It's not about lying to cops, particularly if they can already prove you were seeking those services in the first place. At that point they'll arrest you with probable cause.

They already use that kind of system with drug dealers. If they suspect you sell drugs, they will tag your name and plate and find a reason to pull you over if they spot you. Why would they hesitate to track women like that?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] eee@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago

Easy, women shouldn't be allowed to use highways period. Then they won't be able to drive to abortions.

Fuck it, women shouldn't be allowed to drive. Long live the United States of Saudi Arabia!

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 122 points 1 year ago

Everything else aside, that's about as clear a violation of the Commerce Clause as you can get.

The inability of states to regulate interstate commerce was settled by the courts in 1824.

The same laws that allows firearms to be shipped through states where they're illegal protects abortion-seekers on Texas roads

[-] rothaine@lemm.ee 62 points 1 year ago

was settled by the courts in 1824.

Nothing is "settled" with the current Supreme Court.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] mojo@lemm.ee 114 points 1 year ago

Why does Texas hate freedom so much?

[-] superguy@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

Texans are some of the most delusional people on the planet.

For some reason, even the democrats there think it's better than states like Florida. It isn't.

The only state that is objectively worse than Texas is Louisiana, and that's saying something.

load more comments (26 replies)
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 112 points 1 year ago

Doesn't this run afoul of the commerce clause?

A random ass County can't ban travel on any roads or highway for any reason, right? That's strictly the job of congress.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 46 points 1 year ago

Also I'd like to add:

How about this worthless board look into why there is so much crime in the county before Talibaning travel for women?

You have a 1 in 92 chance of being a victim of violent crime in Lubbock County compared to a 1 in 220 chance in the rest of Texas

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] MisterD@lemmy.ca 101 points 1 year ago

Maybe women should just GTFO of Texas. Anything vag related and doctors won't want to do anything incase you're pregnant.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago

I think getting the fuck out of Texas is exactly what this legislation is attempting to prevent. If they get away with this, I'd doubt they'll stop there, either. Never mind abortion, this will set the precedent that they can legally "prevent" you from using public road infrastructure for any particular purpose they feel like.

It doesn't take a legal expert to see why the line of reasoning they're using to justify this is horseshit, nor to grasp just how dangerous this type of thing is.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 89 points 1 year ago

Next up they will advise women to carry a note from thier husband or father detailing where they are going so they can avoid suspicion. The cops will pull them over and ask for thier papers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] arin@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

"Texas wants to imprison women." FTFY

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 72 points 1 year ago

Cool... driving whilst pregnant is the latest thing to fear US police over then. Wait until the first pregnant woman is shot as part of a routine traffic stop checking for abortion plans.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry but this makes Texas less than a third world country. This is just backwards and medieval.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

The Party of Small Government, Ladies and Gentlemen. The most grotesque joke since The Aristocrats.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

This won't be directly enforced. It will be used to add more punishment to those caught trying to get an abortion.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Not just those getting an abortion, but anyone helping them. It's designed to isolate pregnant women so that they have no one to turn to if they need help.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 57 points 1 year ago

this is the dumbest antifreedom thing I've seen in months. just how can anyone think this is a good idea.

I bet the cookers who dreamt up this scheme were against covid lockdowns aswell

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 56 points 1 year ago

How the fuck do you even enforce this?

[-] snf@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

The ordinance is enforceable through the private enforcement mechanism which has proven its success in both the Lubbock City Ordinance and the Texas Heartbeat Act. This is how the ordinance is enforced,

So: snitching.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

Texas is where freedom goes to die

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Bdtrngl@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

If Lubbock county is a "sanctuary for the unborn" then they'll be glad to help pregnant women and then adopt any unwanted children, right? Right?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Gazumi@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

Texan Taliban impose driving ban

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] orphiebaby@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago

This sounds incredibly illegal? Where the fuck is the law?

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

We should probably also have them start wearing masks and robes over their faces/bodies too, to prevent them from having unwanted pregnancies. Actually, just don't even give driver's licenses to women in the first place, since they should always be getting escorted by their fathers or husbands in the first place, they really shouldn't even be allowed to drive. And if we wanted to reduce unemployment, we could just require all these women in the workplace to go back to being stay-at-home moms, like God intended, freeing up all those jobs for hard-working American men to work at. Send me money if you agree.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 year ago

This shouldn't be a problem based on how they think abortions work...the woman didn't go out FOR an abortion, she was out shopping and decided to get one, like picking up a snack on your way out of the market!

Seriously it's deranged. If they behaved generally like they care about the 'children' and the women, I could accept they're at least acting in good faith according to their dumbass beliefs, but they don't seem to care except for outlawing and restricting women's activities, so it's clear that those who say the point is just to subjugate women are right.

[-] dipshit@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Conservatives are garbage.

[-] pottedmeat7910@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Also Texas: "Why are we having so much trouble recruiting OB-gyns? Why do we have to close so many rural obstetrics departments?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Everyone needs to start suing conservatives in Texas under this law. Make these conservatives fight their own defenses and raise defense funds. I don't get why lawsuits didn't fly against prominent GOP voters and members day 1. Make their lives hell with lawsuits.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Skates@feddit.nl 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I didn't think Texans would be so easily convinced to give up their civil liberties, this doesn't sound like the "stand your ground" state. If this isn't reason enough for the people of Texas to make use of the second amendment's right to bare arms, intended exactly for situations like this - for citizens to protect themselves when their government oversteps, I don't know what is.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Conservatives know that the enforcement will be selective, and that's exactly what they want.

They will only change their minds when it directly affects them.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] moneyinphx@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Does this include highways that receive federal funding? That’s a good way to get this repealed. Threaten to pull funding.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1078 points (98.0% liked)

News

23618 readers
3362 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS