I never asked for more than one baked potato per column | 8-14 Sep 2021
Texas’ new anti-abortion law is one of the most wacky laws I have ever heard of. I do not understand how the Supreme Court of the United States could have allowed this to happen. It is incredibly unfair.
The idea of the law: Encourage private citizens to bring multiple lawsuits to obstruct abortions, bringing people to court. This is a cynical and corrupt abuse of the legal system. No law should be written like this, and letting this go into effect only ensures that other states will copy the idea, and the entire country will be embroiled in senseless litigation.
Private citizens who have no interference in decisions about a woman’s health will be encouraged to sue for “damages” if a woman’s friend drives her to a clinic or lends her money. money to pay for medical bills. How can that mean something? What damage?
How can an uninvolved stranger claim $ 10,000 in damages following a medical procedure to which he was not a party? It is completely illogical.
The nicest explanation for what the Supreme Court did is they decided to sit down and wait and see if the law is as bad as it looks. A kind of “let’s give them a bit of a rope” approach. I think that gives them too much benefit of the doubt.
There is no decision – just a decision not to decide in a situation that seems dire to me. I don’t see how the law can be anything but cruel.
Closer to home, one of our mayoral candidates made a few remarks suggesting that as mayor he would ensure that homeless people who do not move into shelters face unspecified consequences. Do we really need mayoral candidates threatening an already vulnerable and marginalized community? It’s disappointing.
I understand: the tents are ugly. Well, the shelters are too, but only the people crammed into them know how ugly they are because the shelters are surrounded by walls and their interiors are hidden.
Camping in city parks is unpopular, so people are prepared to hear from campers threatened with vague consequences if they don’t follow orders to move indoors. This is then what passes for “compassion” in this city. This kind of compassion should not be aroused.
Meanwhile, Charter Amendment 29 was crushed by a superior court. I watched Judge Catherine Shaffer present the crash, and she shook it. Instead of trying to get a stay of the decision, supporters of the amendment should reconsider the words of the fair and generous judge and rewrite the amendment to take into account his many objections. They should resubmit an amendment that could pass this kind of criticism. It is their civic duty.
If the suspension is granted, there will be a meaningless vote in November for a charter amendment that cannot go into effect because it has already been declared illegal.
It will be a Schrödinger amendment, projected in time; it is only if an appeal of the superior court decision is allowed that the amendment could come into effect. Otherwise, he will be dead.
By the way, I’m sure Erwin Schrödinger’s cat would have hated him if he had had any idea what the subatomic guess Schrödinger had in mind.
At this point, if an appeal is allowed after this decision, it will have Hail Mary status.
Advanced drills for tons and tons of extra credit: Throw those two buns of land out of the park and you could win a chair like the one Tim Eyman took off from Office Depot with. (Just kidding. Adventures in Irony has a joke budget of $ 0.)
One of the arguments supporting the Texas anti-abortion law discussed above is that “the liberals did it too.” They have. In order to make it easier to enforce environmental laws, Liberal lawmakers let private citizens sue for damages that should have been considered public damages – that’s what I read. This columnist doesn’t care. Principles are principles. We stood up against the liberal Supreme Court justices when they undermined the eminent domain. Just because the Liberals did it does not mean that things are correct. If you think I’m wrong, write a 500 word essay explaining how. And put it in a bottle and throw it in Elliott Bay for all I care about.
An easy question: Praise Judge Catherine Shaffer in a different way than I do.
Dr Wes Browning is a former math teacher who has experienced homelessness several times. He provided the art for the first cover of Real Change in November 1994 and has been involved with the organization ever since. This is his weekly column, Adventures in Irony, a dry verbal outburst of the absurd. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Read the rest of the September 8-14, 2021 issue.