this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1075 points (98.0% liked)

News

23397 readers
3669 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 197 points 1 year ago (16 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?

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 161 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] protist@mander.xyz 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a middle aged white guy with no desire to go anywhere near Texas, my Internet blustering doesn't hold much water on this topic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TimLovesTech@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago

It’s even better if you say “I invoke my fifth amendment right to stay silent” and then shut the fuck up.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 28 points 1 year ago

Every day is Shut The Fuck Up Friday

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Three people got busted in a raid. Third guy shut the fuck up, and the DA did not prosecute. They can’t prove what you’re doing there.

[–] conquer4@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Then the Texas police will provide an abortion for you vida beatings.

[–] Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org 108 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 53 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 10 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 (4 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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great, more prison rape leading to pregnancies.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

GOP are wanting to Make America Great Again! You know, the good ol' days when women would have to marry their rapist!

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 57 points 1 year ago (3 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?

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!

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (5 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 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 15 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 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 11 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 8 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.

[–] 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!

[–] 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.

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

Depends. Are they black/brown?

load more comments (3 replies)