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.

  • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    196
    ·
    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?

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          85
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          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

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              This only impacts unincorporated portions of the county, which are extremely rural

                • protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You said:

                    godspeed using that approach with a rural county sheriff’s office in Texas

                    The county has one sheriff’s office. The sheriff’s office serves the entire county. The entire county isn’t rural.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, as unsafe as it may be, more people need to openly give pushback against their policies.

            Just make sure you have bail money.

    • Feddyteddy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      110
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.

          • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            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.

        • cdf12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                edit-2
                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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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…

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      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?

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

    • drapermache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.