Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

What's stopping us from reporting every legislator's daughter for a suspected abortion? Worst case, they all have to go through at least a cursory discovery. Best case we make a few bucks and put one of these fucks in the crosshairs of the pro-life nutters.

Nothing. Do it.

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Views 432k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Bama Chick
    Bama Chick

    No. Fuck off with that. Not every abortion is about trauma and tragedy and using that framing plays into the christofascist’s hands. Women are humans. Humans have bodily autonomy. Ergo, women have b

  • Brisketexan
    Brisketexan

    I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign. No, they didn’t teach us that

  • hayden_horn
    hayden_horn

    of course you do. thing is, i would support that. if they choose that. and the real thing is, i'm actually pro life. both my sons were very premature, and had they been born in the 80s, they

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The Texas taliban has not really thought through what they have unleashed here. 

They know exactly what they unleashed. This is who they all are.

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

Remember that time a bunch of independent voters and Bernie Bros stayed home, or worse, voted for a failed reality tv star and known grifter because they found the competent governance lady to be off putting?

Tell us you are paid to carry the water for the Democrat party and establishment without telling us.

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I do but they keep telling us to get over it 

Now is not the time to talk about it. ;)

4 hours ago, South Austin said:

"Host body"?

spacer.png

 

 

Have you ever witnessed a live birth? Other than the teeth, it actually looks alarmingly like that.

 

edit: And my facial expression looked a lot like Ripley's.

 

 

 

Edited by High Plains Drifter

4 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Going out on a limb here but what stops someone (most likely a woman in this case) from filing suit saying that Due Process (5th amendment) rights are violated because the government is farming out authority to non-government entities?

neat idea. now get it out there.

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

They know exactly what they unleashed. This is who they all are.

maybe. again, I have been no prognosticator in the past, but as others have posited, I think the Texas GQP were expecting the courts to slap this one down like all of their other ridiculous attempts at authoritarianism. They may not have anticipated this one. Remains to be seen.

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

Tell us you are paid to carry the water for the Democrat party and establishment without telling us.

damn. I worked past the ignore filter for this one. DC upping his/her game.

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s hard to imagine the court doing something that will make it look more illegitimate in the eyes of the public than what they just did. Let a clearly unconstitutional law stand with no argument and no opinion. 
 

Hell at least the dred Scott decision and citizen United were actual written opinions with arguments and signatures.  This is just a complete cop out. 
 

Just a bullshit procedural dodge that the vast majority of the public will think is bullshit, because it is. 

It's John Roberts' worst nightmare.  Not only did the Court issue a nakedly partisan decision on a deeply polarizing issue, but it did so in the most illegitimate way imaginable.

It's really hard to look at the Supreme Court as a legitimate judicial body anymore.

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Now is not the time to talk about it. ;)

Take it to the 2016 Election thread. 

 

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's John Roberts' worst nightmare.  Not only did the Court issue a nakedly partisan decision on a deeply polarizing issue, but it did so in the most illegitimate way imaginable.

It's really hard to look at the Supreme Court as a legitimate judicial body anymore.

Next you'll tell me that a decade long concerted effort to subvert constitutional authority to appoint judges tarnishes the court

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Nothing. Do it.

Umm, I don't think that is such a good idea because you KNOW this is one of the GOP plays during the election cycles for every non GOP candidate from school board on up. Sure, Lina can likely find legal support, but anytime a female of child bearing age begins laying groundwork for candidacy, someone will push some buttons and a tip will go to the hotline. They are going to push this as hard as they can because they not only have the court, but the fascist mindset is and always has been misogynistic. Punish women to go back home and stay there. Punish women who help each other. Punish women who speak out.

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s hard to imagine the court doing something that will make it look more illegitimate in the eyes of the public than what they just did. Let a clearly unconstitutional law stand with no argument and no opinion. 
 

Hell at least the dred Scott decision and citizen United were actual written opinions with arguments and signatures.  This is just a complete cop out. 
 

Just a bullshit procedural dodge that the vast majority of the public will think is bullshit, because it is. 

The Bush v. Gore Court says hold my beer.  And, no I don't want to rehash the 2000 election any more than the 2016 election.  But SCOTUS issued a non-precedential opinion that decided an entire presidential election on nakedly partisan grounds.  I'm not sure they had legitimacy since at least that time.

The Texas taliban has not really thought through what they have unleashed here. 

d533ed32ce124dbaaa643126cd527e9f.jpg
30 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

What's stopping us from reporting every legislator's daughter for a suspected abortion? Worst case, they all have to go through at least a cursory discovery. Best case we make a few bucks and put one of these fucks in the crosshairs of the pro-life nutters.

I assume all sorts of competing organizations are forming today to raise funds to do just this.

as i said, abbot's adopted daughter, cruz's two daughters, patrick's sons for aiding and abetting.  tomorrow.

The Texas GOP has set the playbook for the Left to go after illegal gun sales. Find someone that broke any gun sales law, and earn 10K.

Since this new law allows any woman to be sued for acting on her right to an abortion, perhaps we should consider a companion bill that would allow me to sue any Texan who owns a gun for longer than 6 weeks, just because I don’t approve of how they are perceiving their right to own a gun. 

i want to say that's obviously fake but the thing is IT COULD TOTALLY HAPPEN NOW 

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

The Texas taliban has not really thought through what they have unleashed here. 

Are you sure about that? A fascist state is exactly what they want.  

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

So under this new law can I turn this guy in if he drives her to the clinic for an abortion and collect $10K even though I have nothing to do with this?

3 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So under this new law can I turn this guy in if he drives her to the clinic for an abortion and collect $10K even though I have nothing to do with this?

Yes.  You could sue him for not using birth control.

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

just a thought - soon as one of these assholes bounty hunts a woman he impregnated, every single lawyer on here should sue that asshole for $10k for not pulling out/using a rubber/etc

8 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So under this new law can I turn this guy in if he drives her to the clinic for an abortion and collect $10K even though I have nothing to do with this?

Could she sue him? He drove her after all.

What happens if we found out his identity and everyone in this thread sued him?

10 minutes ago, ultimaton said:

Could she sue him? He drove her after all.

What happens if we found out his identity and everyone in this thread sued him?

It’s like one of those class action lawsuits where everyone gets a piece of the millions of dollars, so like $1.13 each.

9 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It’s like one of those class action lawsuits where everyone gets a piece of the millions of dollars, so like $1.13 each.

Lots of people have posted several times.   It's probably closer to $3.50 each.

The other SB that is out there during the special session is SB 36.

Text here:

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB36/id/2427486

It defines what an "abortion facility" is and whether a medical establishment is exempt. Essentially it's going to be very hard to find a provider regardless of the gestation period.

37 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yes.  You could sue him for not using birth control.

Could you sue Trojan for a condom that failed to do its job?

Lastly, because some women have been using mail order services to obtain pharma products to induce, there is a bill for that as well.

 

9405577decdf8becb22a2ad290623eda.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Could you sue Trojan for a condom that failed to do its job?

yes.

Could you sue Trojan for a condom that failed to do its job?
Put Trojan Man on trial! I want to see him place his hand on a bible & swear in!

*j/k... that bible part isn't actually required.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

10 minutes ago, ROFL BOX said:

9405577decdf8becb22a2ad290623eda.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 

To that way of thinking, God aborts 25% of all pregnancies.

Edited for math. Given the figures I found, there were 3.79m births in the US, and 874,100 abortions, which I believe means there were 1.166m miscarriages.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Explained

11 minutes ago, ROFL BOX said:

9405577decdf8becb22a2ad290623eda.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 

Also what about alternate timelines that haven’t been pruned and those branches of variants who had abortions? Can we sue all those too?

Nm

Edited by Willfully Horn
I’m not right in the head.

30 minutes ago, ROFL BOX said:

9405577decdf8becb22a2ad290623eda.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 

Good luck getting God to show up to court.

Can someone from out of state sue a Texan who has an abortion under this law? Could someone surveil an abortion clinic in Oklahoma City, write down all of the Texas tag numbers, and then start suing the owners of the vehicles in Texas?

Yes.

Edited to say that some lawyers say no. Others say yes.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Explained.

15 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Good luck getting God to show up to court.

If he doesn't show up, and have an ID, then fuck him.  Let the judgement go against his earthly estate (Vatican).

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

If he doesn't show up, and have an ID, then fuck him.  Let the judgement go against his earthly estate (Vatican).

You’re channeling the disease in my head. That’s $10,000 per miscarriage. As open ended as the law is described to be, the Vatican vaults aren’t the only target; parishioner’s wallets, watch out for the new lunacy tax.

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

If he doesn't show up, and have an ID, then fuck him.  Let the judgement go against his earthly estate (Vatican).

It's foolproof.

1 hour ago, mchookem said:

i want to say that's obviously fake but the thing is IT COULD TOTALLY HAPPEN NOW 

Yeah I thought that too, and here's what Kendall said about it. The embeds below are weird and I couldn't isolate the specific tweets but in short, the TxBountyHunter subreddit has since been deleted.

 

This is a fact: male Republican voters voted for people who will force their daughters to carry to term any offspring of their incestual rape. 
 

I’m not saying that’s WHY you’ve voted in these anti-freedom feculent fucks, but that’s what you’ve done. 

Edited by Willfully Horn
Spellfucked

44 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Can someone from out of state sue a Texan who has an abortion under this law? Could someone surveil an abortion clinic in Oklahoma City, write down all of the Texas tag numbers, and then start suing the owners of the vehicles in Texas?

14567252.jpg

I got to stop. I’ll leave this version of Blaze’s song, because of the baby singing along. Peace.

 

 

IIRC, there’s also no recovery of costs for someone found not guilty or who has a bogus charge against them. If that’s correct, there are going to be a lot of GOPers spending a lot of money proving they didn’t have an abortion.

10 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

IIRC, there’s also no recovery of costs for someone found not guilty or who has a bogus charge against them. If that’s correct, there are going to be a lot of GOPers spending a lot of money proving they didn’t have an abortion.

tina turner auntie entity GIF

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.