This is good. I love Texas in general and have many close ties, but the hypocritical directions they’re taking are too much. We love Austin as well and as a startup actively looking to open its third office, Austin is a really attractive target. Although I don’t make the official decisions on such things, I cannot see any way I would do anything but strongly advocate against opening our next office in Austin because of all Texas’s nonsense. Denver seems like a good alternative.
This makes no sense. The law is to appease red voters. This is like saying some CA gun safety law is designed to push out red voters. Of course some might see these kinds of laws as getting rid of the “wrong” kind of people. But in general this isn’t how political science works.
You really think you can’t accomplish multiple things with a piece of legislation? That’s exactly how political science works, you craft something to benefit yourself in the most ways possible.
And yet you need more sane voters to vote in a better governor and state reps. It seems like the opposite approach would be strategically better: get more educated people to move into the state and you'll have more educated voters which would lead to positive change.
Gerrymandering still requires significant popular support. In a two party system it can drop things to at minimum 25% vs 50% support in theory, but in practice it’s hard to maintain below 40%.
Jerrymandering has significant popular support, it’s just that it’s one-sided. In a two-party system, it’s incredibly easy to maintain that support. Just look at voter suppression, it’s as one-sided as possible, yet gaining a lot of ground in a lot of states.
I wouldn’t call a 3.5% win, in Texas of all places, a tendency towards trending blue. You seem to be ignoring where most of the population in Texas is based.
It's tricky. Could Salesforce donate to organizations that are patching where Texas is failing (such that Bumble and Match's CEO are doing [1]) instead of offering relos out of Texas? Absolutely. Does that make it any better for those who are subjugated by extremist Texas legislative policy? It lessens the pain but the pain is still there, but to your point, the policies won't change until a critical mass of voters vote in less extremist politicians. This will happen at some point [2] [3] [4] as conservative voters age out and younger voters and immigrants (regardless of origin) become eligible to vote, but there is arguably a lot of value in accelerating the progress towards reducing the suffering of the disenfranchised. Money is speech, right?
Honest question: As a non American, I don't know 100% about the law except that it makes abortion illegal if the foetus has a heart beat. And if someone carried out an abortion and you can positively prove it, you get a bounty of 10,000$.
So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people and it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right?
The problem with that is that "deter some people" is the whole point. This Wapo article goes into more detail but basically restrictions like these always fall disproportionately on historically disadvantaged groups.
So yeah if you have the money to take off work, fly to a state with legal abortion, get a hotel room for however long it takes to jump through their hoops, pay for the procedure itself, and then fly home, no problem I guess.
Yep, I understand that deterring people is the main thing.But if you really need to get one, like in the case of r*pe or a medical emergency, there doesn't seem to be a better way. Unless the Federal govt. steps in. But that will take time, no doubt.
Plus there is some precedent for this in America itself, in a far different context. During the prohibition, people went on luxury liners that used to sail outside of the waters of the US so that they could legally drink alcohol in peace (those who could afford it). Hence the term booze cruise came into existence.
The law is unconstitutional and moronic for the reasons the article outlines.
That's not why it got passed. It's not always about race. It's so hard for HN to get that but here a lot of the most serious proponents of pro-life positions are conservatives....minorities tend to be socially conservative.
It's a moral position. I always see people on HN stake out positions as though the world existed as from their perspective. There are different views on this.
I've at times felt sympathetic to this argument (that the whole debate on abortion boils down to an appeal to morality). However, what ended up really clarifying things for me was hearing accounts of the lengths to which women used to go to abort pregnancies before abortion was legal (and therefore safe). It's simply a fact that women often do not want to carry pregnancies to term. That will not change if we outlaw abortion. You can moralize all day long but it doesn't matter. We can either have safe abortion or we can have abortion by douching with Lysol.
What I am trying to say is it didn't pass here because it was trying to target any specific group, it passed here because people tend to be conservative and for them the moral position is to be against abortion.
Let's be real. It passed because the GOP has an unbreakable majority in the Texas Legislature and the Texas and national GOP wanted another test case to try to break Roe v Wade while there's a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
If they just wanted a Roe test case they would have done a conventional ban. They didn't, they crafted the law to maximize the chilling effect on abortion provision even if it was later held unconstitutional by gaming the rules on preemptive review to avoid getting enjoined before being applied, so that the potential litigation burden would deter abortion and drive providers out of business before a court would block enforcement.
It's that and the GOP sees that very conservative government action is popular and you've got a bunch of people trying to angle for 2024.
But I promise you, the reason why that is possible is because the conservative morality is often pragmatic when it comes to money, however, there's enough pro-life belief across the spectrum that the average voter isn't that upset, regardless of gender, race, income, etc. These are the demographics.
Your morality should have no impact on my morality, unless my actions directly effect you. For example I’m vegetarian for various reasons, but I don’t feel the need to prevent you and society from eating meat if you want.
It's the kind of thing that if used as precedent going forward turns into a mine field. It breaks federalism. It's something law the fugitive slave laws of the 1850s.
> So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people
The cost and time involved will not just deter a lot of people, it will make this entirely impossible for a lot of the state's poorest resident, it's likely two days bare minimum and being out thousands, that's unlikely to be an option for somebody who's working minimum wages.
Which is pretty much the point, the richer ones never had any issue accessing such services when they wanted to.
I think, the main point here is not the delay, but the time you have to take out of your schedule, and you have to explain to your environment (I.e. work, taking care of family members).
> it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right?
First, we don’t know. The law is deliberately written in a vague and obtuse manner precisely to raise these kinds of questions so that everyone will avoid getting the procedure, except for those with the means and cover to not be harmed by the consequences of someone finding out. There’s an open question, for instance, if the driver of a cab taking someone to the airport to board a flight to a state to get an abortion would be deemed “aiding” the person.
Second, even if it isn’t, requiring someone to leave a state to exercise a right is generally considered not good under our federal system. All rights come with limits (exactly what limits are somewhat up for debate when it comes to any particular right) but, in general, current legal standing is that a person has the right to an abortion prior to the fetus’ viability. The states should not be attempting to restrict further than that.
Recall that a major driver of tension before the US civil war was slave states using federal law (Fugitive Slave Act) to force free states to enforce slavery. The whole ‘states rights’ thing was only when it suited.
Salesforce does a lot of business in Texas, and hasn't announced any plans to change that, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "boycott". The source article just mentions a relocation offer. I suppose I don't know Salesforce policy specifically, but every big tech company I'm familiar with has programs to bring overseas employees to the US if they want (and can get a visa).
It’s a lot easier to transfer employees of any skill and speciality to different states. Transferring employees between countries is a lot harder, and for some careers (e.g. tech support) going to be nearly impossible.
It's not hypocritical. Salesforce wants to keep employees that relocated to their Texas offices happy. France and Mexico have not changed the status quo, and I'd assume most of their employees in those countries have always lived there.
The law is significantly more expansive and covers anyone assisting in the abortion services, including providing things like rides to the clinic, etc. not just the person or provider.
Spanish, from Italian pignatta, a kind of pot, probably from dialectal pigna, pine cone (from its shape) - vehicle carrying a seed. Partners of aborters would be getting money from suing them rather than being taxed for the ride in sum.
Worth mentioning: For us lucky tech people it's maybe nbd, but those added logistics would be a high burden for people with a few more financial to time barriers (for whom unexpected pregnancies likely create more hardship).
Sorry if I'm stating sometime obvious, but I personally mostly forgot how different my life was (as a knowledge professional) until I spent some time working day labour in a factory during pandemic...!
I’d imagine the set of people who are not in a position to raise a child has significant overlap with the set of people who cannot afford (in time, money or both) to fly to another state for an abortion.
If a salesforce employee opts to stay in Texas, I wonder if that will be taken as an expression of support for the law and negatively impact their career.
Edit: I didn't expect this comment to be controversial, and I'm not sure why it is. Are the downvotes from people who think it obviously won't/shouldn't, or from people who think it obviously will/should?
I would hope so. On the other hand, if 9 of 10 people on your team opt to leave the state and you're the one who conspicuously doesn't, maybe your choice will be perceived differently. I would hate to find myself in that sort of situation. And elsewhere in this discussion I see mutterings about staying to vote blue being pointless because of republican gerrymandering, so evidently staying-to-vote-blue isn't seen as seen as worthwhile by all.
I don't have any insight into how many Salesforce employees will take up this offer, and I think that proportion will impact how those that stay will be perceived. All I know for sure right now is I'm glad I don't live in Texas, so I don't have to make this decision for myself.
I don’t think so. There are a million reasons someone might not want to move that have nothing to do with politics. Maybe their house is paid off, or their kids have a couple of years left to finish school, or they’re living near a sick parent, or they love the climate, or they just like it there.
This is providing assistance for people who want to leave, but says nothing at all about people who don’t want to.
> Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws?
I mean, in a discussion about women and unwanted pregnancies, as well as their ability to seek mainstream medical care from their local doctors, is one inclined to direct attention to how you wish to access more guns with less red tape?
Does this come from a feeling of being slighted? Like, it's unfair that women are receiving relocation benefits, but not those who want better access to guns?
It would have been a better analogy if the gun laws in California would have been as recent/sudden as Texas' new abortion law. You seem to assume this is about identity politics but people may have been living in Texas for a long time and suddenly affected by a very recent change that may mean they are in danger of getting stuck with a pregnancy they do not wish.
They may even be otherwise conservative who find themselves in a situation where they only want to get an abortion later than 6 weeks in a pregnancy (which is a very short time scale - a lot of women wouldn't even know they're pregnant until a month or more in).
Why would they? Their position on guns is I'm sure quite different than their position on abortion. If the company agrees with California's takes on both issues then why would they fund relocations from there?
But the post I replied to was disingenuous. It made it sound like the law was that insurance purchasers have to pay for abortions, but that’s misleading. Don’t think so? Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. It’s technically true, but implies something more direct than the reality.
If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't quite suffice.
Apparently there's a place, California, where health-insurance-buyers (so, ideally, everyone, and presumably all Salesforce employees) all unavoidably fund abortions, this arrangement of things being upheld by force of law.
> Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly.
Doesn't sound silly to me. If you're against insulin, then you have grounds to object against California's laws.
"It’s technically true"
So it's true. Will you bite the bullet with regard to the equivalent statement about abortion? Sure, it's an indirect arrangement of things. See my revised, hedged formulation above.
No, why would they? The stance of Salesforce is clearly, implicitly, in opposition to the law.
The article claims the announcement was "without taking a stance on the law". But that's wrong. Salesforce hasn't proclaimed a stance, but their actions (well, statements about their intended future actions) speak sufficiently loud.
I don not support Texas law in question. But will they help relocate from SF for those sick of homelessness, drug overdoses (more people died in SF from drug overdoses than from COVID during pandemic), raising crime and increasing anti-Asian hate?
> It seems strange that conservatives would oppose abortions
Not when you consider that it's about control and red meat for the base.
> when the women/children will likely go on to use the welfare services that Republicans loathe to support.
Welfare services in texas? Not much of that, and what little there is, is probably on the chopping block just as soon as the hospitals implode (and the grid does so again).
It's obviously not. Were it "about life" Texas would first look to guarantee and protect life with first-class universal healthcare, including prenatal, maternal and infant, as well as child protection and social programs to shame the entire world.
As is, they mostly shame the entire world in the sense that Texas is considered a developed country.
That remark is exhibit A in the repertoire of evidence for the collapse of civil society.
Just because someone does not agree with 'your' opinions does not make that person bad. This is also the core of the whole woke madness which is currently raging, the conviction that anyone who does not follow the current narrative is bad/*-ist/*-phobe or just 'deplorable'. That attitude belongs to religious zealots, not to political ideologies.
He’s literally taking pleasure at someone else’s expense. It’s sadism. That’s almost the definition of a bad person. It’s not something I just throw around.
He is taking pleasure in what he terms the woke brouhaha which to me does not translate to individuals suffering, more to insufferable individuals. It may be schadenfreude but that does not make him bad nor does it make him guilty of sadism.
Sadism can definitely apply to a group of people. Individuals suffering is not antonymic to insufferable individuals so I don’t even know how to respond to that “argument”.
> This is astounding to me. I don’t know if Americans realize how this makes SV look…essentially the companies are playing nanny to grown ass adults. First the schools tell them what to think and college teaches them how to think…and then employers direct them how to live their lives.
>This is the direct result of parenting outsourced to the state/schools/employers. It’s over for America.
As a woman, I am horrified that an employer has any..ANY OPINION AT ALL about women’s reproductive decisions. We are not children. We are adults with our own uteruses.
>A govt or educational institute or religion or employer should have NO opinion or thoughts about personal adult choices. This kind of interference cuts both ways.
Imagine some companies offer time off for pregnancy and childcare! Horrifying! How morally blind Americans must appear to their EU partners.
I think they expect to lose some talented employees who may look to move away. They are offering to help those who want to move to not loose talent. I don’t see anything else. Maybe they are factually wrong and no one wants to move away and the program is worthless, but maybe they are no wrong and they keep employees that otherwise they would need to retrain. I don’t see nannies here.
Corporations are just a bunch of people working together and wielding economic resources equal to small nation states. Of course you use those resources to help and protect each other.
It’s very normal for companies to evacuate their employees from hostile situations. Is that playing nanny?
Why is it wrong for a corporation to support or denounce state laws that has nothing to do with their business?? How can anyone not see that this is a double edged sword??
Because that’s how we will end up being ruled and controlled by corporations who will now start to influence legislation.
Because it would take half a second for this to flip and work against us. Not necessarily wrt abortion laws. Abortion laws are low hanging fruit. What else will salesforce influence or support or interfere with to retain its talent?
Not to mention..the strength of a generation that flees any situation that might be uncomfortable or unacceptable. No one digs in their heels and fights for what they believe. Why? Because the current generation have no beliefs. They never had an opportunity to form any thoughts or opinions as they have been nannied by state run schools who made all their decisions by pushing parents out of parenting responsibilities and duties. Hence they flee.
And corporations which have taken the baton from state run schools now herd them and then influence legislation. So now the loop is complete. America is toast.
The new Texas law makes it effectively illegal to help someone get an abortion, for example by providing transport to a clinic for that purpose. Even if the clinic is outside Texas.
Shouldn't they be trying to relocate more people to TX so they can vote for more sane representation? If a bunch of people end up moving out of the state over this then the TX GOP gets what they want.
> If a bunch of people end up moving out of the state over this then the TX GOP gets what they want.
It would be more interesting to me to find out people who would actually quit/leave vs saying they will. I'd bet in actuality it's quite a small number that would follow through and certainly not an exodus. A lot of people always say they will do X, but don't actually do it when it comes down to it because it would inconvenience them or burden them too much to actually follow through. Both quit our jobs? Do we have enough saved to do that? Sell the house? Pull the kids out of school away from the only friends they've known? Find new daycare that we trust? Move away from family, extended family and everything you know? Find a new house? Find 2 new jobs making as much as we were? Finding a new city in a new state that we like and feel like we fit in? That's a lot harder to actually do than say "I'd move."
That’s a very good point. They should support people moving to districts that can be flipped so that Texas can turn blue. Also donate heavily to the races that can bring Texas back to, at least, the 20th century.
well credit where credit is due. I've been saying for years that there's a cycle where anarchy -> depotism -> momarchy -> democracy -> anarchy. Had no idea there was a word for it
I'm not a conservative but having travelled around the world, I happen to agree. But I'd contest that there are plenty of republican policies contributing to that degradation as well. When I look at the countries with the highest inequality, what strikes me is a few things like extreme competition and tragedy of the commons effects. Things that federal regulation is suppossed to reign in.
