this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1066 points (98.2% liked)

News

23376 readers
2231 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 196 points 1 year ago (14 children)

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?

[–] Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org 107 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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 (3 children)

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.

[–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Yep. One should never use a smartphone with the intent of ever breaking a law. It's nothing but a huge papertrail for law enforcement. Believe in parallel construction and don't believe stories of safely encrypted data in either iOS or Android.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Well that's fucked...

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Or anyone who makes a particular search.

[–] cdf12345@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quickly tapping or holding the lock button on an iPhone will disable biometric entry until a pin is entered.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thats useful, but if I'm doing something where I'm concerned I might have my phone checked (airports, border crossing etc), I'd rather just turn it off off, instead of having to remember to do that, or do it each time I unlock my phone in those circumstances.

Could be easy to forget in the moment.

Great if it's truly unexpected

[–] FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you think they are going to get this info directly off your phone, you are pretty naive. It's social media where they will harvest this data. Locking your phone is like holding your pinky up to avoid getting wet in a storm.

[–] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I imagine that someone trying to get an abortion won't be too public about it on social media...

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Even if they are, that shouldn't stop them from seeking or receiving healthcare. Fuck this evil GOP bullshit.

[–] FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's being shortsighted about things. Remember the story of how Target knew a girl was pregnant. You think if they are going to dig for evidence, they wouldn't just use tactics like that. You won't have to announce you have had an abortion, but I am sure certain actions that are tracked by social media will scream it out for you. I don't understand why I am downvoted on my previous post. I am merely trying to warn people about the dangers of letting big companies or govt collect all this information on us. But hey, I guess people don't care enough to stop it.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, there's that mother who was jailed because there was evidence of aiding an abortion in her private Facebook messages, so it's not like there isn't even immediate precedent.

There's a complete lack of understanding about privacy on these sites. People will make mistakes, especially younger people seeking abortions. Even adults will make that mistake as seen here.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/nebraska-mother-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-for-giving-abortion-pills-to-pregnant-daughter-1.6574100

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Target knew she was pregnant because she was buying stuff like pregnancy tests and prenatal vitamins. It wasn't all that hard to deduce. So yeah, if you're researching abortion providers or asking your social network to help you obtain an abortion, social media/google will know. But it isn't some subtle behavior that clues them into it.

Sure, if you are familiar with this person and are close enough to them to know these details it's probably easy to figure out. The ease of which they can deduce things is only part of the concern. It's the fact that they can, will, and have used this data against people is the real point here. Once these officials suspect that someone has traversed their county seeking an abortion, it's just a matter of time before they start submitting subpoenas to various social media for their data on these heinous individuals daring to use their roads for nefarious purposes...

They don't. Even when it starts ruining lives and loved ones start disappearing, they won't give a shit.

They want this. They want others to do anything they want so long as they aren't inconvenienced or hurt, and if they are, as long as they aren't rendered homeless, and even then, as long as they aren't imprisoned.

They are cowed through decades of propaganda, ready for the slaughter.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 57 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It goes like this:

We know you're traveling to get an abortion, we have your messages and search history. It is illegal to use this highway for that purpose. You are under arrest.

Whether they are correct in issuing an arrest doesn't matter for them because they have qualified immunity. They let the courts sort it out.

I was just having this conversation the other day. The person was absolutely confounded how in the world this law would be enforced. I essentially said that it doesn't matter. Cops will stop you for whatever, arrest you for whatever, send you to jail for whatever, doesn't matter. If they're wrong, oh well, that's the court's job.

[–] eee@lemm.ee 35 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!

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They cannot because they do not have jurisdiction at all. You can't prosecute someone for doing something legal in another area.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the loophole they're trying to use. You can't punish them for the abortion, so you punish them for using public roads for disallowed purposes (driving to abortion). They do have jurisdiction over road use.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They dont really have jurisdiction over road use because of the interstate commerce clause either.

Thats why they claim this bullshit law doesnt cause any conflict, because they aren't restricting use of the road, they are just "making it easier for private citizens to sue people that help women doing something legal one state over" which is of course restricting use of the road, but pretending its not.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's absolutely ridiculous and hopefully it won't stand up to a challenge. But the fact that it exists, and no one wants to be the one going to court to fight the government, means that it will still have an effect on these women.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There’s two things that apply in this situation. The first is that like several other states, they’re not making getting an abortion in another state illegal, they’re making traveling on their infrastructure for the purposes of obtaining an abortion in another state illegal. Is that an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce? Who the fuck knows anymore? I don’t think it will hold, but I didn’t expect Justice Thomas to rise like Cthulhu from his eternal and well grifted slumber to kill Roe, so I’m not offering an opinion on that.

The second way, and this is also worrying me, is that while they can’t make flying to California to smoke pot illegal, they can make having pot in your system when you land back in Texas illegal. If they can’t make having an abortion in CA illegal, can they still use medical records to track that your pregnancy was terminated out of state, and prosecute you on a charge after returning to the state with a terminated pregnancy?

To be honest, I think that will fail too, but I’m sure it’ll land on the books someplace.

I’m also sure that these will all become national level laws because people still think politics is a team sport, and if it does not terrify you that the worst president in the history of the US and with openly fascist statements of taking full control and going after his enemies is running neck and neck with just a regular pre-2000s style politician, you’re either not paying attention or you’re privileged as all fuck.

[–] shadow@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

This is my take as well. I hope folks figure it out and that laws like these get wiped out.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is why I as a Canadian can't fathom why Americans seem to think they have more freedom than I do somehow. To me the whole "States Rights" debacle essentially gives Americans two countries worth of laws that they are bound by instead of one.

The fact the US also enforces it's laws on non-citizens for things done outside it's country legally gives the whole thing the sense of the US being drunk on it's own sovereignty. Like it's legal to smoke pot here but if you are tricked into mentioning at a US boarder crossing that you EVER smoked weed on Canadian soil even if it was in the distant past you risk being forever barred from entry into the US.

And to be clear this is not their citizens doing things in their own country that are not illegal by the measure of that country's law. From what I understand there isn't much of an appeal process either because once it's done our citizenry suddenly goes into category "not my monkey not my circus".

The US is very very fond of restriction of freedoms from an outsider perspective.

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not super sure that applies here - they aren't being punished (legally) for getting the abortion, but for using the roads to get there. It seems to me conceptually similar to how European companies aren't allowed to sell drugs that are used for lethal injection to the US, even though those drugs are legal to sell in Europe: They aren't being punished for taking part in an execution that's legal where it happens, just for doing something that enables it in a place where it isn't legal. Same deal here.

I'm sure it's an unconstitutional/illegal law for some other reason, I just don't think this specific reason applies.

[–] TheGoldenV@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m excited to see the faces when this is used to regulate guns.

Sorry sir, but in this here county you can’t take guns out of your yard. To include bringing them in the first place.

The guns that are in your home stay put and your rights are intact.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Nope, that will not happen. Our 2A rights are iron-clad and that would be a clear infringement on the right to bear arms.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

When pulled over, any interaction beyond what is required by law should be not answered or answered with something along the lines of invoking the 5th. There are a bazillion YouTube lawyers that all the say this.

If you need directions, put in something that isn't the abortion place, but has it along the way, like a national park or other tourist place, some conference, etc. Then put in the real destination when you get across the border.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These types of laws tend to rely on someone close to the pregnant person calling the cops, usually family. These communities passing these laws are full of people who would eagerly jail their children for getting an abortion.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

No no, not their children. Their child's abortion is necessary. Their child has so much potential and Jesus will forgive them for it.

You childs abortion? You're a heathen that will burn in hell for baby murder.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

The big issue is that it's not law enforcement that enforce this, it's everyday people - and those people are given immunity by this law.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just some advice here: don’t answer questions.

A cop pulls you over “I don’t answer questions”, “I’d like to speak to a lawyer.”, “I do not consent to a search.”, “I would like to speak to a lawyer.”

If they keep asking questions. Do not respond with anything other than “I would like to speak to a lawyer.” Be polite; but you are far more likely to incriminate yourself than not.

The more you say, they more they can use against you.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And be recording all of this to the cloud while you're at it.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

make sure to record without unlocking your phone, if that's the route you're going to go. Also. Don't use biometrics to unlock your phone. Use a pin. Less convenient, sure, but your face/fingerprint is "evidence", but they can't compel you to give up your pin.

not that it's going to do much at all. there's tools that they can use to crack inside of... moments.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Straight up intimidation. Women will now be pulled over and asked questions that are nobody's business, not to mention it gets more women pulled over and in danger of being assaulted by police.

[–] eyes@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it would likely be used to add extra charges after the fact ie did you get caught? Then you must have also commited this crime on top of the others. Then again I might be ascribing logic where there is none.

Oh, you now committed 3 crimes in the process of having your abortion, that's now a life sentence without parole!

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Depends. Are they black/brown?

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Easy. Arrest all pregnant women traveling.

Who is going to stop them?

[–] drapermache@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They could just have checkpoints on the exit roads on the state. There are a lot of things Texas republicans are doing with police, namely allowing them to be border patrol agents with authority to deport people. This, along with precedent being pushed that police can find probable cause after the fact that you’re arrested, police can just arrest first because they saw a women “who looked pregnant.” I foresee women becoming second class citizens really soon in red states, and its really troubling.