Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/brat2381/status/1676986194012540930?t=T7o25sMF9vAu70phsXe9xA&s=19

Am I missing something, or is this article just completely false and misleading?
First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion.
The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did.
But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source.
This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.

Not quite.  When you read a law or statute (or a contract) you have to go to the definitions section to understand what the words mean.  So if you go back to the statutory definition for this particular code, it's below. Note: emphasis is mine. 

“Public agency” means the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.

https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_1798.90.5

It is not saying "A" state, it's saying "THE" state.  Which is California.  Now I agree one could theoretically challenge the conclusion, but there is likely case law already addressing this or a corresponding statute.  In fact, you can delineate it from the predicate where it says "any city, county...", it does not say "any" state.  So don't jump too quickly to accusations. 

Well that definition of public agency is definitely as clear as mud. The first half uses “the state” as you mentioned, but the last part almost just repeats it but without adding “the state.”
”or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.”  So why repeat everything and leave off the state if it doesn’t apply to cities outside the state? Seems like there’s at least room to argue it applies outside CA.
Even if it doesn’t, this article is trying to push the idea that Sacramento Sheriff is illegally sharing license plate data so other states can track who traveled near a health clinic and may have received abortion services. 

That just seems absurd. No one is doing that. First, it’s not illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion. Even if it was, traveling near a clinic that offers abortions proved nothing other than you have a car. And last, no one is going to waste all the resources required to do this, to track something that isn’t even illegal. So even if they can’t share the data, still seems like a far fetched idea with zero evidence supporting the claim. Designed to just scare people from something that will never happen.
Keep I mind the article didn’t actually claim they are doing any of this are say there are any reports of it happening, just saying they can with the license plate data. It’s trying to scare people from something that isn’t and would never happen.

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/brat2381/status/1676986194012540930?t=T7o25sMF9vAu70phsXe9xA&s=19

Am I missing something, or is this article just completely false and misleading?
First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion.
The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did.
But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source.
This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.

Not quite.  When you read a law or statute (or a contract) you have to go to the definitions section to understand what the words mean.  So if you go back to the statutory definition for this particular code, it's below. Note: emphasis is mine. 

“Public agency” means the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.

https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_1798.90.5

It is not saying "A" state, it's saying "THE" state.  Which is California.  Now I agree one could theoretically challenge the conclusion, but there is likely case law already addressing this or a corresponding statute.  In fact, you can delineate it from the predicate where it says "any city, county...", it does not say "any" state.  So don't jump too quickly to accusations. 

Well that definition of public agency is definitely as clear as mud. The first half uses “the state” as you mentioned, but the last part almost just repeats it but without adding “the state.”
”or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.”  So why repeat everything and leave off the state if it doesn’t apply to cities outside the state? Seems like there’s at least room to argue it applies outside CA.
Even if it doesn’t, this article is trying to push the idea that Sacramento Sheriff is illegally sharing license plate data so other states can track who traveled near a health clinic and may have received abortion services. 

That just seems absurd. No one is doing that. First, it’s not illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion. Even if it was, traveling near a clinic that offers abortions proved nothing other than you have a car. And last, no one is going to waste all the resources required to do this, to track something that isn’t even illegal. So even if they can’t share the data, still seems like a far fetched idea with zero evidence supporting the claim. Designed to just scare people from something that will never happen.
Keep I mind the article didn’t actually claim they are doing any of this are say there are any reports of it happening, just saying they can with the license plate data. It’s trying to scare people from something that isn’t and would never happen.

I won't get into why the statute is unclear.  That's par for statutes and not unique to this one.  But having spent a career dealing with regulations, I can tell you that the Sacramento Bee's reading of this isn't unusual or biased.  It's the likely interpretation.  

There have been a few states to try to make it illegal to help someone get an abortion out of state.  Missouri had a law last year allowing people to sue the transporter, the out of state doctor and anyone else that assists.  I'm not sure if it's still a pending bill.  But don't discount that these laws won't come from the more conservative state.  

Regarding your second point, you have two things happening here.  First, an agency sharing data that is statutorily not allowed.  And then the people up in arms about it talking about how it could be used.  While it may be unlikely today, to say it could never happen would be naive. 

Halifax2TheMax

Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-states-abortion-now-illegal-begin-prosecute-abortion-provi-rcna35268

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-states-abortion-now-illegal-begin-prosecute-abortion-provi-rcna35268

Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples.
Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion.
No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that.
The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. .
Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-states-abortion-now-illegal-begin-prosecute-abortion-provi-rcna35268

Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples.
Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion.
No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that.
The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. .
Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?

Excuse me? Because the cops never, ever conduct illegal searches and seizures, ever? Yes, law enforcement is "randomly searching phones," apparently when a complaint is made about a potentially terminated pregnancy. That's why women are being told not to give over their phone for inspection without a warrant and to remain silent unless legal counsel is present. And yes, "citizens" have been deputized with an incentive to "report" women who may have terminated their pregnancies, and potentially can get paid $10K (and they have 4 years to make the claim), in addition to laws being passed that criminalizes anyone who aides and abets the termination of a pregnancy, including travelling over state lines. Gee, how would the cops know if someone drove over state lines? Gee, I don't know, maybe by requesting license plate data from state camera systems? No, they're not "actively monitoring license plate data looking for folks who cross state lines for an abortion" but they may very well use that data to prosecute someone who terminated a pregnancy.

Can you name any other medical procedure that is legal in one state but illegal in another and where a law has been passed in the state that makes it illegal, to charge folks if an ensuing investigation determines they aided and abetted the "illegal" medical procedure? How about any other crimes, outside of abortion?

And if you don't think this instills fear in a vulnerable population and is "no big deal" because law enforcement is "not actively monitoring the data to see who gets abortions," welcome to fascism. Tejas made getting an abortion or more precisely, terminating a pregnancy after a certain number of weeks, illegal. And a number of other states are following suit.

Here's a hypothetical, a pregnant woman from Tejas travels to California to have an abortion. Her neighbor drives her. Her other neighbor reports her as "not looking so pregnant anymore." The police investigate and the formerly pregnant woman denies it. Tejas prosecutor determines that her neighbor went to California around the time she was pregnant and then wasn't. Tejas asks California for license plate data for a particular license plate, for a particular date range. California reports that a camera 2 blocks from a family planning clinic picked up the plate on dates in question. Tejas prosecutor now has probable cause. Tejas gets a warrant for the neighbor who drove her and evidence determines that yup, she drove her there but she also charged the cost on her credit card. Whether they're convicted is irrelevant. Its that they can be charged with a criminal and/or civil penalty that has the chilling effect. If I'm California, where abortion is legal, I would deny the Tejas request for license plate data for the "crime" of abortion. But no big deal, right? Misleading headline and article. Never going to happen, right?

Texas Abortion "Trigger" Law Effective August 25th, 2022

July 27, 2022

News

---

The Texas abortion "trigger law" will be effective on August 25th, 2022. This law will prohibit almost all abortions. It also sets out civil, criminal, and professional penalties for abortion providers who violate the law.

These provisions are in Chapter 170A of the Texas Health & Safety Code, which was enacted by House Bill 1280 in 2021. The bill allows Chapter 170A to go into effect 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final judgment overruling Roe v. Wade.

On June 24th, 2022, the court released an opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that allows individual states to prohibit abortion. The court issued a final judgment in the case on July 26th, which set the trigger provisions in motion.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton provided guidance on the impact of Roe v. Wade’s reversal on Texas law in two advisory letters released this summer. The second advisory letter states that Chapter 170A will take effect on August 25th, 2022.

Paxton’s guidance also addresses the Texas criminal abortion laws in place before the Roe decision in 1973. He states that these laws are now enforceable as they were never repealed by the Texas Legislature. Paxton advised that under the pre-Roe laws, local prosecutors can immediately pursue charges against anyone who provides a restricted abortion. The enforceability of these prior laws is currently being litigated in state courts.

Texas Abortion "Trigger" Law Effective August 25th, 2022

Civil Liability for Violation

This bill does not allow lawsuits against a person who has had an abortion. However, Section 171.208 permits anyone who is not a government employee to file a lawsuit against a person who:

(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;

(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;

(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

The bill does not provide a definition of "aids or abets," so it's difficult to say what conduct a person could be sued for. Section 171.208 also instructs the court to award injunctive relief, an amount not less than $10,000, and court costs and attorney's fees if the person who brings the lawsuit is successful:

(b) If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall award:

   (1) injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this subchapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this subchapter;

   (2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter that the defendant aided or abetted;

   (3) costs and attorney's fees.

A person has 4 years to bring a lawsuit under this law. SB 8 specifies that these provisions apply only to abortions performed or induced after September 1, 2021.

Frequently Asked Legal Questions (texas.gov)

The fear is real:

“We know that prosecutors are going to try to criminally punish people, irrespective of what the law says,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel at If/When/How, a reproductive justice legal nonprofit, in an interview last month. “For us to be able to resist this criminalization, it is important to note that it is unlawful criminalization. Merely being an act of a prosecutor doesn’t mean that it’s the law.”

Pregnant people may also worry about anyone who, in the language of the law, “aided and abetted” or helped “furnish the means” for an abortion — friends who drove them over state lines, someone who mailed them pills, a doctor who provided an ultrasound to ensure they completed the abortion.

“People are living in constant fear [because] they wouldn’t want to do anything that would jeopardize the liberty of their loved ones or their medical providers, and as a result, may avoid necessary health care,” Roth said.

Prosecutors in five Texas counties have vowed that they will not pursue abortion-related charges, but legislators are already discussing ways they may empower other district attorneys to bring charges outside their jurisdiction.

And Texas’ abortion laws do not bring only criminal penalties. The trigger law, which goes into effect later this summer to coincide with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, also has civil penalties of at least $100,000 per abortion, and under a law commonly referred to as Senate Bill 8, anyone who “aids or abets” in a prohibited abortion can be sued for up to $10,000 by any private citizen.

Texas lawyers prepare for a wave of abortion criminalization | The Texas Tribune

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-states-abortion-now-illegal-begin-prosecute-abortion-provi-rcna35268

Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples.
Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion.
No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that.
The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. .
Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?

They are creating civil liability which means the gov't is not oppressing you, but an opposing party can.  H2M is giving you examples. These are real.  If you think anti-abortionists really think that abortion is a state issue, you're awfully naive.  Why do you think they pushed the Misoprostal ban in ALL states, at the federal level?  

mrussel1

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ohio-issue-one-reject-loss-abortion-rights-ballot-measure-rcna98842

Wow!  Nice job Ohio!  The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed.  You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November. 

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-states-abortion-now-illegal-begin-prosecute-abortion-provi-rcna35268

Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples.
Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion.
No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that.
The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. .
Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?

They are creating civil liability which means the gov't is not oppressing you, but an opposing party can.  H2M is giving you examples. These are real.  If you think anti-abortionists really think that abortion is a state issue, you're awfully naive.  Why do you think they pushed the Misoprostal ban in ALL states, at the federal level?  

I don't disagree there is more opposition and potential for federal restrictions. I just think this article was raising issues that don't exist.
First of all, the headline "Sacramento Sheriff is Sharing Data With Anti-Abortion States" is intentionally misleading. They share data with all states, not just anti abortion ones, and you'd think they are sharing some kind of data that is linked to abortions. They are not. So when you see a headline like that and then read the article and find out what is actually going on, just comes across to me more as click bait than anything else. 
Also, 71 law enforcement agencies share the data, why do I seeing Sacramento being singled out? I have no idea how many of the police departments actually have license plate readers, but 71 has got to be a large percentage of them.
They only share the data with other law enforcement, which is a gray area at worst. The law is vague enough I am no where near enough convinced its not legal, and 71 police departments claim it is as well. And its only shared with other agencies. They aren't sharing this data so other people can make civil lawsuits out of it. They share the data to track warrants, fugitives, Amber Alerts, etc. I see nothing wrong with doing that. There is no record of anyone using this data to go after abortions. I haven't found any records of someone even requesting this data for anything near that. Its not like they are creating a website similar to the rape registry and show who has traveled near a health clinic for everyone to view.

Its the jump from the headline to seeing what is actually happening that makes me roll my eyes at this article. To go from sharing data with anti abortion states to finding out its just license plate data to track criminals is a big stretch to me. Tracking license plates has nothing to do with abortions, and it is still illegal to share that data for the purpose of filing a civil lawsuit. They only share it for official law enforcement purposes.

I would be curious to see if any lawsuits are successful, because I don't see how you can have a successful suit for doing something completely legal in one state, just because another, uninvolved state, doesn't like. 

That would be like someone from Massachusetts suing a friend because they traveled to New Jersey to set off some fire works for the 4th. MA doesn't allow fireworks, but NJ does. So what. I just don't see it ever getting to that level where those lawsuits are successful.

I also said Roe would never be overturned. So there's that. 

The Juggler

mrussel1 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ohio-issue-one-reject-loss-abortion-rights-ballot-measure-rcna98842

Wow!  Nice job Ohio!  The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed.  You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November. 

Another great sign for next year too. 

Gern Blansten

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ohio-issue-one-reject-loss-abortion-rights-ballot-measure-rcna98842

Wow!  Nice job Ohio!  The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed.  You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November. 

Another great sign for next year too. 

Big time...I saw that voting at Ohio State was like 98% no....genZ coming through

Halifax2TheMax

Regarding California law sharing license plate data:

California’s Senate Bill 34, passed in 2015, restricts police and sheriff’s departments from giving automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities.

The bill, authored by former Sen. Jerry Hill of San Mateo, says that it “would, in addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, authorize an individual who has been harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.”

So there is quite rightly legal action that could be taken by any woman traveling to California to seek an abortion who has her privacy rights violated by police or sheriff’s departments here.

And Sheriff Cooper of Sacramento should know that. When he was an assemblyman representing Oak Grove, he voted for that bill.

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/07/21/stop-sharing-out-of-state-plates-data/

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ohio-issue-one-reject-loss-abortion-rights-ballot-measure-rcna98842

Wow!  Nice job Ohio!  The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed.  You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November. 

Another great sign for next year too. 

Big time...I saw that voting at Ohio State was like 98% no....genZ coming through

I wonder how many there actually were.  4 shows at The 'Shoe in 8 days. Official move in is next week. must have voted absentee.

do think ohio gop will put forth voting bills denying students the vote if not already an ohio resident.

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1689344111965282307?t=5fy540EXo3RIqDp7pakTug&s=19

The Juggler

Love to see it

mickeyrat

love this page..

https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1689230865887272960?t=RbA14q7jYaerUxBWLgt1-w&s=19

Bentleyspop

Abortion should always be...

Accessible to all women who want or need it
Affordable 
Available to any and all women who want or need it
Legal 
Safe

Not controlled by old white men who identify as straight and "christian".

cblock4life

What the GOP doesn’t understand is that this is not about abortion.  This is about discriminating against women and their right to choose.  Taking away the right for a woman to control her body and mind, because this isn’t just physical to women, it’s mental as well, is just not going to happen moving forward. 

Roe was a wake-up call.  Our  government is not standing up to protect women, they’re just trying to take control.  

Anyone ever watch “what would you do?”.  It’s usually the women who speak up first.  And now, don’t  mess with women’s rights after our predecessors fought so hard for the little we’ve received.  We are far from equal still.  

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

Regarding California law sharing license plate data:

California’s Senate Bill 34, passed in 2015, restricts police and sheriff’s departments from giving automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities.

The bill, authored by former Sen. Jerry Hill of San Mateo, says that it “would, in addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, authorize an individual who has been harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.”

So there is quite rightly legal action that could be taken by any woman traveling to California to seek an abortion who has her privacy rights violated by police or sheriff’s departments here.

And Sheriff Cooper of Sacramento should know that. When he was an assemblyman representing Oak Grove, he voted for that bill.

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/07/21/stop-sharing-out-of-state-plates-data/

For a political party that isn't into big government they sure as hell want to be big brother!

The Juggler

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Regarding California law sharing license plate data:

California’s Senate Bill 34, passed in 2015, restricts police and sheriff’s departments from giving automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities.

The bill, authored by former Sen. Jerry Hill of San Mateo, says that it “would, in addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, authorize an individual who has been harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.”

So there is quite rightly legal action that could be taken by any woman traveling to California to seek an abortion who has her privacy rights violated by police or sheriff’s departments here.

And Sheriff Cooper of Sacramento should know that. When he was an assemblyman representing Oak Grove, he voted for that bill.

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/07/21/stop-sharing-out-of-state-plates-data/

For a political party that isn't into big government they sure as hell want to be big brother!

Exactly. 

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Regarding California law sharing license plate data:

California’s Senate Bill 34, passed in 2015, restricts police and sheriff’s departments from giving automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities.

The bill, authored by former Sen. Jerry Hill of San Mateo, says that it “would, in addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, authorize an individual who has been harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.”

So there is quite rightly legal action that could be taken by any woman traveling to California to seek an abortion who has her privacy rights violated by police or sheriff’s departments here.

And Sheriff Cooper of Sacramento should know that. When he was an assemblyman representing Oak Grove, he voted for that bill.

https://www.ocregister.com/2023/07/21/stop-sharing-out-of-state-plates-data/

For a political party that isn't into big government they sure as hell want to be big brother!

Because if you’re not, you’re “soft on crime.” Thank Shrub and the war on terr-error.

Further, privacy and the right to same no longer exist.