That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban.
-
So should they also stop selling to Texans iPhones? Or just close the stores there or the manufacturing facilities?
Meanwhile Austin has different politics to elsewhere in Texas. Should Apple carve out an exception there as well?
they should probably go ahead and enforce a no-travel policy as well, fire anyone who attends SXSW for instance. they should also go through their ranks and thoroughly question anyone who was born in or has lived in Texas in their life, just to be sure they have the correct worldview. and while you're doing that, might as well question all the Christians, especially those pesky Catholics, and ask anyone who doesn't agree with the company's values on this sensitive topic to renounce their faith or face termination. this is the only way to have a morally correct workplace where you know everyone shares the same values you do, and you don't have to fret about whether or not the guy in the cubicle next to you is morally bankrupt.
neither is allowing massive corporations taking moral stands on divisive political issues—wholly unrelated to the purview of their industry—to become socially acceptable!
corporations are comprised of people that work for them, but corporations themselves are not people, regardless of the image social media managers try to portray. this is a crucial distinction.
Setting aside anybody opinions on this particular law/topic, are you suggesting companies shouldn’t “vote with their wallet/feet”? If you had a 2 person company and you were the CEO and SomeState enacted a law you strongly disagreed with would you not seek to limit your business’ support of that state?
comparing Apple to a two-person company is highly disingenuous. in the past decade or so we've slid into a world in which massive corporations start pretending to have morals outside of "increase value for shareholders" and it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone takes it seriously at all... especially when at the same time, everyone is on board with firing the Brendan Eichs and Palmer Luckeys of the world for their individual beliefs/donations! we cannot continue to allow a world where these gargantuan corporations attempt to exert moral influence on the populace, it's like we're just asking for a technocratic corporate dystopia at this point
where did I say I was advocating for forcing anyone to do anything? merely encouraging people to respond to massive corporate superficial moralizing with a "lmao ok bub you're a corporation not a person" instead of enthusiastic agreement would go a long ways.
I think a lot of this ends up being motivated by employees and customers of Apple who are using Apple as a lever of action, rather than being orchestrated top-down by Apple. This works, at least in part, because Apple is subject to popular opinion in a way that the legislative process is at least somewhat insulated from.
So I guess I just don't agree that it's a corporate dystopia. It's a popular opinion dystopia, actioned through corporate activism. To use a sports metaphor badly, Apple is the football, not the quarterback.
(And to be clear, I don't think it's dystopic at all, at least compared to the alternative, which would be to forbid this type of corporate activism)
> it's like we're just asking for a technocratic corporate dystopia at this point
You think we're not already there? Optimist...
A huge amount of modern life on the internet is intermediated by a very, very small list of giant companies. And those companies have started going, rather aggressively, after points of view they don't like - Amazon has recently announced they're going to be paying more attention to what's running on AWS, etc.
I don't think it's that naive. The argument, to me, is that bringing people into Texas to work shows that you are comfortable with the conditions. Similarly, increasing your investment there shows you're comfortable with it.
They can try to limit new hires to people already in Texas, or only move single males in, but these options aren't appropriate for the 21st century. Simple retail operations, or even warehouse operations, aren't really non-local-hiring issues. So they're the least offensive/most-explainable options.
Yeah, they can go all sports league and boycott Texas, but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. Or, they should just admit "we're just in it for the money, suck it up" and stopping their posturing.
And no matter what you say or do re: Austin, it's in Texas. Nothing they can do, really, against their own state laws. Similarly, Montreal is a great city, but it's in Quebec and thus under the rule system of Quebec.
At the end of the day, it's up to people to follow their moral compass in their daily lives. Companies are sociopathic.
You know there are plenty of women who are strongly anti-abortion as well, right? Handwaving within a few percent, about 40% of women and 50% of men in the US are strongly anti-abortion according to Gallup and Pew surveys from the last few years.
> ...but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places.
If only. They can't. China has Apple by the balls, and Apple knows it. The downsides of moving literally all of your manufacturing to a country that's increasingly "Do what we say or else."
I would argue that Apple is one of the companies with enough money to do WTF they want to do. So, as you point out, they ARE doing what they want to do and hope people take words over actions. The key will be if they have hiring problems as they're not going to have marketplace problems.
If we're talking about conditions for Apple employees, could they secure travel to another state for anyone wanting an abortion?
Granted that comes with a substantial can of worms around privacy.
Now that I think about it though, the 'conditions for employees' argument is pretty much just as morally hypocritical as a boycott when you bring China into play.
Technically, if Apple did that they'd open themselves up to lawsuits under the current law for aiding in an illegal (under this law) abortion. So they actually do have a stake in all of this since they could be named as the defendant in lawsuits in Texas if it stands and they stick with providing insurance coverage around abortions the Texas law now deems illegal.
The calculus around this abhorrent law is complicated. Part of me thinks this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold.
If so, the gambit is pretty weak, since the law is plainly unconstitutional, and Democrats know this. It's only a matter of time before it is overturned by the federal courts. The Supreme Court might not even bother to hear the case (though that is unlikely).
I was thinking more that it creates a chilling effect. It sends a clear message that progressives aren't welcome in Texas and anyone thinking of moving there will feel that chill regardless of whether the supreme court strikes down the law.
Do you mean one side is trying to extend rights to more people and one side is trying to take them away from those people (often with threats of violence)?
Geographically speaking (and population-wise in the aggregate), most of Texas has been inhospitable to liberals and progressives since it was first settled by whites. The cities are still chock full of liberals, though, where they have significant political power.
There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics.
The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.
That was a "no standing" ruling -- they can't enjoin the Attorney General of Texas because he doesn't enforce the abortion rule. Once there is a case with standing, it'll bubble up to the supreme court.
They didn't decline to hear the case on substantive grounds (i.e., on the merits). They declined to hear an emergency appeal to stay the law on procedural grounds.
So, it's going to wend its way through the Federal court system and back up again, where they will either decline or agree to hear the case.
Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional?
Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid.
The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.
This is not a good take. If unconstitutionality was as simple as ctrl-f the constitution we wouldn’t need the court system. Read here for a description of how the bill of rights creates “zones of privacy” which are breached by restricting access to abortion.
You can call it "not a good take" but if the argument is that the "constitution protects it" but it isn't enumerated—then you really can't argue that the constitution protects it.
>Can you show me, from the text of the constitution
It doesn't have to be from the text of the constitution if the right derives from it under case law.
As such, here you go:
"In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States." [1]
Here [2] is the exact opinion from the Supreme Court. The Opinion starts on p.4 of the document. Go ahead and read through it to see exactly what is Constitutional and what is not.
So, under current law, there should be no question, right?
Except... this isn't law. This is legal precedent. The court can only rule on laws—it cannot create them.
This is why we are now "decriminalizing" things: In a plurality of states, you have fetal homicide laws where the life of the unborn is equated to another human life. Courts and prosecutors have simply chosen to ignore the law and the left has pretty consistently used the courts to bypass actually changing or doing anything with the law (probably because the support just isn't there).
What do you think law is? The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court’s interpretation is that that law protects the right to abortion.
You might not understand how (or agree) that follows from the text, but that doesn’t matter. Only the Supreme Court’s interpretation is canonical; ergo, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
In the US's system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. Currently, denying access to abortions is unconstitutional because the current Supreme Court precedent says it is. Until the Supreme Court issues a new ruling on the subject, that is the status of constitutional law in the US.
There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law.
The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.
I am kinda interested on what happens if they let it stand. If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion, what kind of fun will we get when this legal theory gets applied to gun laws?
I have seen the exact opposite conspiracy theory proposed.
That the Democrats somehow goaded the Republicans into passing something so abhorrent that even a large number of republicans would switch vote come next election.
This is probably similar to that theory that democrats made covid vaccine political to kill republican voters because they wouldn't take it out of hate for democrats. An absolutely ridiculous sentiment and lie. Somehow, no matter what happens, they are always the victim and being persecuted - even when they are imposing their will on others.
Yea, it’s a signal that works both ways. I’ve met a handful of new arrivals from New York and California who want to get to Texas because it’s a red state (and there’s a perception that homes are cheap).
Abbott is doing this because he wants the Republican Presidential nomination, and to do that he has to fend off the not-insignificant number of right wingers who want to primary him due to some of his early actions during the pandemic.
But people need to let this play out before making business decisions or boycotting Texas. This thing will go away. It just needs to find its way to the courts. Cancel culture demands instant action, but that’s not how government works.
There is a doctor in San Antonio that just notified the state/medical board that he performed abortions after the law went into effect. It’s expected that he’s ready for the fight and I’m sure he’ll get all the legal support he needs. If apple or others want to be a part of the solution, there are certainly less kneejerking ways to do it.
That was my first thought too. But then doesn't that logic also apply to any state that passes laws its minority party doesn't like? California has experienced red flight due to their laws.
>this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold
This is definitely not it, replace blue with red, Republicans with Democrats & replace Texas with California, is California trying to "widen the shrinking margin of power the Democrats hold" ? Definitely not...
First rule of wielding economic might: Make sure you don't hurt the people you're trying to help. Taking economic opportunity away from women in Texas doesn't make them better off.
I don't think this would be a boycott, because Apple stores will always exist; it's, "should I signal to my employees that a location is healthy for people to move to and work from, when the location is reducing freedom and passing legislation to take away healthcare?"
Also, the economic opportunity in this case is zero sum; if Apple is intent on expanding, while reducing their presence in Texas, women in general would still have a net gain, just located in areas that are friendlier to women.
I'm more interested in seeing how this plays out from a privacy perspective regarding the use of Apple phones or services by people in Texas to surveil or report other people seeking abortions.
Expecting Apple to leave money on the table in an economy the size of Texas would be almost as crazy as expecting them to leave Russia or China over their stance on human rights violations or political apps (both of which they capitulated to).
The actions suggested here are about their employees and offices. This has nothing to do with no longer selling products there, which you seem to be implying. The only “leaving money on the table” might be related to if they end up paying more taxes if they move to another state.
It's funny, because Apple is trying to get its engineers to move away from the Silicon Valley which is so expensive, and Austin is their next best US campus.
They've got big money on expanding offices in Texas.
The politics of this are strange to say the least. Why should a company shut down, or limit growth in a state due to a law that is political/cultural? I don't see how them expanding in Texas is implicitly supporting this law, just that is supports their bottom line. If we take that line of thinking does Apple implicitly support dictatorships? Authoritarian states? Apple has locations open in many countries that do not have worker rights, do not have democracy, etc. This is a civil liberty sure, but they are otherwise fine on selling their phones without complaint. As far as moving employees there, if an individual employee has issues with the law they wont go there. There are women that disagree its infringing their civil rights, do their ideas not matter?
While I have mixed feelings on the issue, having paid for an abortion in the past, these reactions strike me as being over the top.
Most workers will most likely be remote from now on meaning they have a choice in what state they work in so they can address this regardless of where Apple chooses to locate physical facilities.
Further, I keep wondering what % of females are having 1 or more abortions for this to be such a critical issue for most?
In theory, employees could be remote. In practice, Apple has publicly said that they plan to move 5000 employees into the new campus they are currently building in Austin:
Interesting that Apple is so concerned with the Texas abortion law, but has no qualms using sweatshop labor, or maintaining offices in China. The Texas abortion law is bad, but it does not begin to compare to the human rights violations of China, including an active holocaust against the Uyghurs and other Muslims.
The only logical conclusion from this is that Apple has (correctly) decided to take a position on this. Unfortunately, by doing so, they’ve invalidated the typical justification for not speaking up on Chinese atrocities against their own marginalized citizens. Barring a more detailed explanation, the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens.
> the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens.
This is hardly the only conclusion you can draw. Another is that Apple (correctly imo) sees that they have a lot of influence over the law in Texas, and none at all in China.
This is reductionist nonsense. I can easily imagine scenarios where Apple disagrees with China treats its oppressed citizens, but chooses not to speak out against them.
I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive, but I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well. I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy. I'm weary of how all these corporate giants are coming together and trying to influence state laws after they've been passed. For two main reasons, one, I would like these companies to focus on what they actually provide, rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset. Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves?
For all it's horrible flaws, this was something passed by the Texas government. I can at least understand the structural justification for the law. People voted for a state representative, state senator, and a governor who signed the bill. The authority and responsibility is clear. The feedback mechanism is also clear - vote. And, I do hope a lot of them lose their seats as a result of the backlash. But again, I think the power to address this Texas-Sized problem should primarily be in the hands of Texans, rather than giant multinationals like Apple.
As a point of order I don't think this article is advocating for lobbying as much as it is advocating a boycott slash pseudo-embargo of the State itself. To me, at least, that feels very different.
The thing is that this isn't companies influencing state law. This is companies deciding who and where they do business. In many cases valued employees are going to quit and join a company not in Texas if their employer does not give them the option of transferring to a non-Texas office, so the company has a vested economic interest in retaining them and locating their offices in some place where this will not be an issue.
You have every right to be an asshole, but you don't have a right to make other people put up with it. If you're going to enact something that a large swath of your population finds deeply offensive, don't be surprised if they leave, and don't be surprised if the economic activity they generate leaves with them.
Is this actually true though? Nobody currently living in Texas just woke up and realized that they live in a deeply conservative state. Even Austin is much more conservative than Seattle or SF.
I have coworkers living in Texas and while they’re disappointed in the ruling, I haven’t heard of a single person planning on moving because of it. Most people I know moved there because of the land, property taxes, climate, etc. The politics situation is unfortunate to them, but not a defining problem. And considering these same people have the resources to get abortions no matter what (not to mention the fact that most abortions happen in low-income, marginalized communities), I don’t foresee many people leaving because of this.
The Texas population is almost purple, but the Texas legislature isn't close to purple. Thanks to the legislature's ability to choose their voters (gerrymandering) that's not a situation that's going to change any time soon. Add in the voter suppression laws they've also recently passed and you can be sure Texas is going to be Red for a good long time.
On another note, I know people who were thinking about moving to Texas. They're not now. On the flip side I know people who moved to Austin in the past two years. They're now looking at leaving. One has already done so. This is where renting and working from home is a blessing - you can quickly change residence.
yeah, this is one of our considerations. right now my wife and i are planning on sticking around through the election next year and helping out with some campaigns. if dems in this state can’t pull off some Georgia-style turnout in the next election, we’re almost certainly leaving before the next one.
In the chemical modeling/ML field it's an excellent time to find work in N America and Europe. Yeah, it's harder to move as a pair than solo, but one has to be able to look in the mirror.
Apple employees who don’t like Texas law or culture can work for Apple in California, and employees who don’t like California culture or law can work in Texas, yes?
Seems like Apple supports their employees by maintaining offices in different places.
That's what this memo is clarifying, that Apple will support employees who want to transfer because of state politics or who need to seek an abortion out of state.
It's not a given that you can transfer between offices for personal (or political) reasons; normally there are requirements based on team & organizational needs.
My sister's thinking of moving out of the state after living there for 18 years.
The actual nail-in-the-coffin for her is the school board situation, although she's pretty furious about the abortion law, the way they've handled COVID, the power utility situation, etc.
For most of the last couple decades you could be liberal in most of the big cities and basically just go about your business. Texas was pretty big on "live and let live", after all. Apparently it's not like that anymore, and the more conservative factions are very in-your-face about owning the libs now.
The “vote” system has been broken badly, which is why the “free market” system needs to be used instead until it’s fixed - and to help fix it. And if you don’t like a company acting on some social value, don’t buy their products.
Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso. Everyone hates Nestle, yet they're doing better than ever.
If I don't like what Amazon is doing, how can I possibly boycott a company that has meshed itself into the backbone of the internet at almost every level? As a Texan, at least I can vote in the next election. I have virtually no power over these big companies.
>> The “vote” system has been broken badly, which is why the “free market” system needs to be used instead until it’s fixed - and to help fix it. And if you don’t like a company acting on some social value, don’t buy their products.
> Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso.
It's definitely more broken, at least from a democratic perspective. In the free market, you vote with your dollars and shares, and those with more money have more votes (sometimes many orders of magnitude more). One man one vote it ain't.
This idea that you can put yourself into an ideological bubble and just assume that the world outside the bubble is the same as the world inside the bubble is a form of self-deception.
Most people don't hate Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. All these companies have huge user/customer bases. Even when the whole Microsoft is Evil thing was going on, most people were sufficiently self-aware to understand that this was a niche view. For some reason, that connection with reality became unhinged and many people really think they are in the majority now, and that's when they experience these types of coginitive shocks such as realizing that most people in Texas are pro-life or that most Brits voted for Brexit. For some, the shock of reality is so devastating that it deeply wounds them and they start massively freaking out when they see a tear in the fabric of their self-constructed reality.
Note that I am not arguing against self-constructed realities. It's necessary, but you have to keep in mind that
1) odds are most people don't share your views
2) odds are that you yourself will change your mind later in life as you become wiser.
3) odds are very good that your grandchildren will repudiate your views.
The number of views that we have that we can think are truly universal and will stand the test of time is very small, and almost all of them already have existed for a very long time.
> I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy.
Well you're a little late on that, business has been influencing policy since the East India company was chartered in 1600.
I'm perplexed how people don't perceive business has been influencing policy for centuries until they start intervening recently for employees who are women and what have you.
Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies? Or contract with the police or military?
Why does the issue begin and end here for so many people?
>> Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves?
> Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies?
What do you mean? Isn't there a huge amount of energy in those areas?
> Or contract with the police or military?
That's not at all like the first two things you listed. Refusing to contract with the police or military (because they're the police or military) is probably a greater interference with democratic government than not siting an office in an area because you don't like the laws the legislature passed.
I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive
Apple and many other US employers extended health and other benefits to LGBTQ partners of employees for a couple of decades before Obergefell. Do you think they shouldn't have?
Truthfully I can't give you a satisfactory answer because I see the situation as just too different. They decided to give additional internal employee benefits and they weren't directly going against any state laws to do this. To me at least, the situation feels different.
> I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy
What if a law is being drafted that directly affects their business? Should they still be quiet? Or is there a list of issues that can be vocal about, and a a list of issues they should be quiet about?
In a world of ideals, I agree with this. Just like I agree that waiters should earn a living wage and I shouldn't have to tip them. But we don't live in that world. Corporations have a ton of influence on governments and I think that singling out instances where a company is considering doing something that supports women's rights is a bit silly.
> I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well
Apple's secret power is that they integrate everything really really well. So your laptop works seamlessly with your phone, your watch, and soon Texas too.
Apple is the football here, not the quarterback. If Apple does anything, it will be because they are succumbing to pressure from customers, investors and employees. Corporate activism is not orchestrated by cloaked figures in board rooms; it's orchestrated by regular people who have found a more efficient lever than the legislative process. It's the ultimate expression of capitalism!
> … rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset.
I hate to break it to you, but everything IS political, all the time. If you don’t believe that, it’s likely because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular.
I take offense to this, and the assumption that I hold this view because "because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular." How do you know that? To what "rights" do you refer?
I, like you, am a resident of Texas. I think for Apple to do what the article is suggesting is taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws. Politicians need the consent of the governed, and now apparently, the consent of Bay Area corporations who are decidedly progressive.
> taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws
In other words, your right to have your representatives restrict the liberty of the rest of us Texans for no good reason.
Sadly, the motto of the Texas Legislature seems to be "Local control!" when it comes to national policy — at least if the federal government is controlled by Democrats — but just the opposite when it comes to blue cities' enactment of progressive local ordinances that offend rural conservatives and/or their corporate donors.
(Houstonian here, formerly a lifelong, pretty-conservative Republican.)
That's exactly right. That's what 'democracy' means...you vote, and sometimes you lose, but you still have to abide by the will of the voting mass that wins.
There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
You created your account literally ten minutes ago, champ.
Please re-read what I said: I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Texas GOP: Local control for me but not for thee.
And "democracy" does not mean "democratic authoritarianism." (Or as the sour joke went about hard-line Islamist parties during the Arab Spring: One man, one vote, one time.)
>That's exactly right. That's what 'democracy' means...you vote, and sometimes you lose, but you still have to abide by the will of the voting mass that wins.
Let the large cities in Texas decide if abortion should be allowed within city limits. That's totally possible if the state govt delegates powers to counties/cities. Oh wait, that's small govt but goes against the agenda so it will never happen.
>There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
Not allowing this sounds like an abusive relationship, like a dictatorship like North Korea where people seeking to leave are killed. Just like the Taliban stopping people in Afghanistan from leaving. The new law also comes from an extremist view of a world religion so the argument has a parallel in that they take a dim view of people trying to leave the extremist religion adherence imposed on others.
Yes. That is at the heart of my belief in representative government. And it wasn't my representative alone who voted for this, it was enough of them to get it passed.
I've already stated many times that I think this is an atrocious bill and I hope it gets overturned. But at the very least, it was passed by duly elected representatives and it appears to have withstood the courts (for now).
OK, I take your point. But actions have consequences; if Apple or whoever wants to take their business elsewhere as a result, then that's their right — right?
The state legislature can craft all the laws they want and businesses can decide they don't want to associate with those states in order to protect their employees. Actions have consequences.
Politics is fundamentally about how groups make decisions. Anything that influences group decision making has a political aspect to it. The status quo implicitly carries a set of norms that will impact group decision making and are thus political, this is hopefully apparent just looking at the differences between countries and their political norms.
Indeed, it's hard to find anything that does not somehow touch on group decision making because so little is truly private e.g. want to have a loud party in your apartment? Whether societal norms approve or not will determine you can do that or whether you're forbidden to do that or allowed to potentially bother your neighbors; part of the group.
Once properly framed, the idea is practically tautological. But even without that framing it's usually much more obvious for people for whom the status quo is a rough deal.
In what way are your representatives limited in crafting laws by Apple? Should people and companies be forbidden to leave a state just because doing so could have consequences your representatives don't like?
It wasn't an issue when the social change was about slavery, or money laundering, or privacy, or monopoly, or copyright, or tax, or employment, or environment, or immigration, or healthcare, or housing, or zoning, or transport, or energy, or manufacturing, or mining, or fiscal policy, or monetary policy, or elections, or trade, or education, or subsidies?
Sorry, yes, I do think it's naive to think a business - particularly a trillion dollar omninational - can operate in ignorance of the laws and politics that their staff experience. A business is a construct of between some and a lot of individuals, not an entry in the NASDAQ.
>What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves?
It's a false premise, since there is no additional right, but the employees are voters.
I think everyone should take a step back and breathe.
If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.
Frankly, if you need an abortion you can go to another state. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country. Apple could literally offer flights to California for any medical procedure no questions asked and problem solved.
I also don’t see Apple as having the moral high ground here. They employ slaves in China. Apple respects the Chinese government and says nothing. They’re sterilizing people, organ harvesting on live people (Christians and Muslims) in China. But this... this is what people care about?
Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play.
Additionally, Apple does not determine the law. If legislature responds to Apple, that would be due to the structural aspects of democratic government, in other words, the voters want something and will place pressure during elections. And Apple is just one of the many big companies in TX.
> Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play.
The statute is blatantly unconstitutional, and Apple has enough high-powered lawyers to fight any lawsuits.
I can think of plenty of reasons why a police force could be advantageous, but my point was constitutionality. I don't believe it's unconstitutional.
For reference, bail and repos are done in a similar manner and are way more intrusive (taking someones car). I don't really see your point? In this case, someone is merely sued for $10k (as opposed to jail or losing license).
> Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion.
That's fair, I was trying to indicate they could offer all expense paid flights to Cali any time to headquarters or something. Don't ask why, don't even make it related to medical.
I personally have flown to other states & countries for medical procedures. Further, there's a boat load of other methods of mitigating the need for abortions within the law.
It's insane to me that Apple, a business, should apply pressure.
It's dishonest to offer that up as some kind of objective measure of public opinion on the law. An obvious partisan survey [1], just look at the questions:
> Texas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and laws could get even more restrictive due to the makeup of the current U.S. Supreme Court. Generally speaking, do you think that laws regarding abortion access in Texas should be more restrictive, less restrictive, or kept the same as current state law?
We used to call that a leading question.
The Texas legislature voted this into law with a sizeable majority. If the large majority of people are against this law, they should organize, vote new people in, and have it overturned.
The problem with liberals is they're just terrible politicians. Everything is an appeal to the courts or their mega-corporate employers to help establish agendas instead of doing the only thing that works: getting bills signed.
I am not living in Texas/US, but believe that babies of any age in mother's womb should have 100% protection – as far as humanly possible. If Apple listens to the author's advice: "move your business out of Texas" – a democratically chosen government that chooses to protect life – I will also move my business out of Apple.
I find it disturbing that so many people only think about mothers right to abortion, and have no qualms whatsoever about taking the life of perfectly formed humans and destroying the life they would/could have been living . . .
> It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country.
This is the kind of privileged naivete I come to HN for. The cost of an airplane ticket isn't the only cost to travel out of state for a medical procedure. At a bare minimum you also have to consider the person's time and that many people don't have flexible enough employment to take time off for something like this.
It wouldn't even be one plane ticket: someone should probably accompany the person getting an abortion, as they will be recovering from being sedating after the procedure (they shouldn't even drive for a whole 24 hours!) They'll be directed to rest, so booking a hotel for the night is preferred over hopping on a return flight. The "$200 plane ticket" estimate costs for an out-of-state abortion is so off: easily it is 3x: another ticket for the one accompanying and hotel costs.
The subject of the law (reproductive rights) is only part of the issue. The implementation is also sets an extremely problematic precedent. They basically hacked a way around any sort of judicial review by turning the citizenry into bounty hunters.
> The implementation is also sets an extremely problematic precedent
I'm pretty sure this is how the old policing system worked in the U.S. they would set bounties and citizens would bring people in.
In this case, I'm 99% confident it'll be deemed constitutional and isn't really a problem.
States can do what they want, it's extremely problematic that people in other states feel they should apply pressure on people thousands of miles away.
You are applying pressure just as much as anyone that argues against the Texas law, insisting that people should follow your preferences for how the government is organized rather than speaking their minds.
I'm pointing out that you everyone should really be focused on local politics. And suggesting the bullies who disagree should leave Texans alone.
This law does almost no damage and from the majority of Texas perspective it's a net positive. I don't see why anyone, especially Apple, should be applying pressure externally.
It's not our job to question it? If you are a citizen of the US and this law is going through the federal court system and potentially setting precedent for the entire country - it absolutely matters. And we should question it. We should also question it because it's impacting the lives of people. Texas's local government is poorly run by people like Ken Paxton who is under indictment and also tried to assist Trump in stealing the US election. This impacts all Americans (and the world given the outsize influence of the US on global politics).
Saying Apple does bad things elsewhere doesn't make this a non issue. People criticize Apple for these issues and rightly so. Apple criticizing Texas over these issues doesn't change the reality about the issues in Texas.
Apple and everyone else should be criticizing Texas.
I don't care if people discuss at all, but take a moment to think about what you're actually questioning.
You're questioning the choices of the people of another sovereign state. Not only that, but your advocating that because the people of that state believe your killing babies with a heart beat... they should be punished by Apple? a phone manufacturer? By the way, this phone manufacturer literally uses slave labor of Christians and Muslims in China.
If you want to have a discussion, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's really what most people want here. I think they want fascism. Effectively a corporation enacting on a political ideologies behalf. That's dangerous and will lead to massive conflict.
In reality, the people of Texas have the right (via the constitution and state government) and through their representatives, to say they don't think it's okay to kill babies with a heart beat. Imagine if oil companies stopped providing oil to California
Texas is part of the United States. Of which, I am a citizen. I am free to question their decisions when they impact the whole of the country. The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. And somehow you think I shouldn't have a right to question their decisions when they get pushed up to the Supreme Court and potentially be applied across the entire country? No. Sorry. No.
If we give companies the power the lobby and push agenda, then yes, I think Apple should be allowed to push social agendas and punish Texas for enacting draconian laws that are designed to hurt women and set the country back decades. Apples actions here and what they do in China can both exist and don't make one action OK because the other is NOT OK. Or are you going to say only the perfect moral entity can have an opinion on any topic? Because there will always be some moral critique of anyone who says anything.
If we are going to let people subject their ridiculous religious beliefs despite the supposed separation of church and state, what's the difference with letting companies? It's just another organized group with lots of money. Why let one get away with it and restrict the other?
Personally, I'd like to see religious groups lose any tax benefit if they participate in politics. I'd also like to see Citizens United overturned and get corporate money out of politics. But given the status quo, if corporations want to fight the religious right pushing their anti-women agenda? It's better than saying 'companies shouldn't be involved in politics.'
By your own argument, companies have the right to not employ people in a State that is pushing an agenda against a protected class of people. The current set of laws says this is OK, ergo, Apple has the right to do it. This is the same logic that the people of Texas have the right to enact a draconian anti abortion bill. The rest of the country, people and companies, have the right to say fuck off and try to change the law.
> The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win.
Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees.
This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no?
Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that.
Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected.
I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous.
Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street.
I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.
For someone who preaches about we shouldn't be trying to harm those of a different ideology, you're trying to justify the oppression of women that's coming from a mostly religious perspective. Exactly the thing you're saying you're against. The can of worms has been open for generations and they are trying to hurt large swathes of people they don't like for ideological reasons.
Why not just pull a Salesforce and offer all employees free travel out of Texas to get an abortion?
Over time this perk grows across the Texas economy and causes political change, or continues to be a few companies offer it and people can virtue signal by choosing where they work.
>> Why not just pull a Salesforce and offer all employees free travel out of Texas to get an abortion?
There are many reasons (e.g. abortion is a very private and personal matter and most people probably wouldn't want to involve their employer), but primarily, it would count as assisting abortion and could open Apple to liability under this law.
This could have a number of potentially significant secondary effects.
1. Accelerating the trend of companies taking sides on political issues. Think about how many companies you use and imagine half of them taking your side, and the other half taking the opposing side.
2. Expanding the already outsized influence of corporations in government.
3. Apple having to contend with their China-Sized Problem re: factory workers, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Uyghur population.
Putting the actual law aside, I'm a bit confused on Gruber's argument here that "it’s untenable for Apple, or any other company, to “support our employees’ rights to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health” and ask any woman to work for the company in a state with a law like Texas’s."
This sort of presumes that Texas is an empty plot of land where no one lives. This is obviously not the case. There are millions of people that live there and need jobs. So what about women who want to work for a cool consumer technology company and are anti-abortion. Why would it be "untenable" to hire those women?
Coming at this from a personal-choice-oriented perspective, the answer for those women is not to get an abortion for themselves regardless of whether the law in their state allows it.
Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem for those who strongly prefer to live in a state where nobody’s allowed to have an abortion.
Most of us are also OK with laws forcing everyone to wear pants in public. We don't consider it a serious infringement of our personal freedom.
Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term -- even an especially risky one, or one that's the result of rape or incest -- has significant impacts on both the mother and the community that could be net negative instead of positive.
Everything about a vaccination is supposed to have net positive effects, both for the individual recipient and the public health and welfare.
I'm concerned that HN moderators may have down-weighted this post to keep it off the front page. If true, this would make me concerned about soft censorship on this site. What do others think?
My understanding is that HN down-weights posts with, loosely speaking, a high ratio of comments to votes because that often signals a controversial and/or flamebaity topic.
> That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban.
I like reading Gruber usually, but this comment is completely asinine.
So funny. With all of the diversity, there is not one religious person to say the obvious: religious people dont change their belives because of money.
Has anyone considered broader implications of government making health decisions for individuals?
Each small mandate will add up over time to something we cannot currently imagine.
Take the executive order mandating vaccination for companies with over 100 employees.
Say this is challenged in court and it is upheld on some grounds. This might set some precedent. Then say at some point later the Texas law goes before SCOTUS. The initial precedent might provide a win for Texas.
This is all speculation, but it not entirely out of the real of possibility.
166 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 263 ms ] threadThat’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban.
-
So should they also stop selling to Texans iPhones? Or just close the stores there or the manufacturing facilities?
Meanwhile Austin has different politics to elsewhere in Texas. Should Apple carve out an exception there as well?
So I guess I just don't agree that it's a corporate dystopia. It's a popular opinion dystopia, actioned through corporate activism. To use a sports metaphor badly, Apple is the football, not the quarterback.
(And to be clear, I don't think it's dystopic at all, at least compared to the alternative, which would be to forbid this type of corporate activism)
You think we're not already there? Optimist...
A huge amount of modern life on the internet is intermediated by a very, very small list of giant companies. And those companies have started going, rather aggressively, after points of view they don't like - Amazon has recently announced they're going to be paying more attention to what's running on AWS, etc.
They can try to limit new hires to people already in Texas, or only move single males in, but these options aren't appropriate for the 21st century. Simple retail operations, or even warehouse operations, aren't really non-local-hiring issues. So they're the least offensive/most-explainable options.
Yeah, they can go all sports league and boycott Texas, but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. Or, they should just admit "we're just in it for the money, suck it up" and stopping their posturing.
And no matter what you say or do re: Austin, it's in Texas. Nothing they can do, really, against their own state laws. Similarly, Montreal is a great city, but it's in Quebec and thus under the rule system of Quebec.
At the end of the day, it's up to people to follow their moral compass in their daily lives. Companies are sociopathic.
You know there are plenty of women who are strongly anti-abortion as well, right? Handwaving within a few percent, about 40% of women and 50% of men in the US are strongly anti-abortion according to Gallup and Pew surveys from the last few years.
> ...but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places.
If only. They can't. China has Apple by the balls, and Apple knows it. The downsides of moving literally all of your manufacturing to a country that's increasingly "Do what we say or else."
Granted that comes with a substantial can of worms around privacy.
Now that I think about it though, the 'conditions for employees' argument is pretty much just as morally hypocritical as a boycott when you bring China into play.
Maybe Apple has some framework for medical privacy in place they could leverage for this, and I've read Salesforce has already done it.
Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period?
Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.
There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics.
The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas...
So, it's going to wend its way through the Federal court system and back up again, where they will either decline or agree to hear the case.
Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional?
Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid.
The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.
The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973
I’ll get the popcorn.
It doesn't have to be from the text of the constitution if the right derives from it under case law.
As such, here you go:
"In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States." [1]
Here [2] is the exact opinion from the Supreme Court. The Opinion starts on p.4 of the document. Go ahead and read through it to see exactly what is Constitutional and what is not.
So, under current law, there should be no question, right?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
[2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
This is why we are now "decriminalizing" things: In a plurality of states, you have fetal homicide laws where the life of the unborn is equated to another human life. Courts and prosecutors have simply chosen to ignore the law and the left has pretty consistently used the courts to bypass actually changing or doing anything with the law (probably because the support just isn't there).
You might not understand how (or agree) that follows from the text, but that doesn’t matter. Only the Supreme Court’s interpretation is canonical; ergo, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law.
The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.
This is already happening btw: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057
That the Democrats somehow goaded the Republicans into passing something so abhorrent that even a large number of republicans would switch vote come next election.
Abbott is doing this because he wants the Republican Presidential nomination, and to do that he has to fend off the not-insignificant number of right wingers who want to primary him due to some of his early actions during the pandemic.
But people need to let this play out before making business decisions or boycotting Texas. This thing will go away. It just needs to find its way to the courts. Cancel culture demands instant action, but that’s not how government works.
There is a doctor in San Antonio that just notified the state/medical board that he performed abortions after the law went into effect. It’s expected that he’s ready for the fight and I’m sure he’ll get all the legal support he needs. If apple or others want to be a part of the solution, there are certainly less kneejerking ways to do it.
This is definitely not it, replace blue with red, Republicans with Democrats & replace Texas with California, is California trying to "widen the shrinking margin of power the Democrats hold" ? Definitely not...
https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/pentagon-admits-its-killed-civ...
Also, the economic opportunity in this case is zero sum; if Apple is intent on expanding, while reducing their presence in Texas, women in general would still have a net gain, just located in areas that are friendlier to women.
They've got big money on expanding offices in Texas.
Most workers will most likely be remote from now on meaning they have a choice in what state they work in so they can address this regardless of where Apple chooses to locate physical facilities.
Further, I keep wondering what % of females are having 1 or more abortions for this to be such a critical issue for most?
https://www.kxan.com/news/business/apples-1b-austin-campus-n...
Longer term, they've talked about making that 15,000 employees.
The only logical conclusion from this is that Apple has (correctly) decided to take a position on this. Unfortunately, by doing so, they’ve invalidated the typical justification for not speaking up on Chinese atrocities against their own marginalized citizens. Barring a more detailed explanation, the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens.
This is hardly the only conclusion you can draw. Another is that Apple (correctly imo) sees that they have a lot of influence over the law in Texas, and none at all in China.
For all it's horrible flaws, this was something passed by the Texas government. I can at least understand the structural justification for the law. People voted for a state representative, state senator, and a governor who signed the bill. The authority and responsibility is clear. The feedback mechanism is also clear - vote. And, I do hope a lot of them lose their seats as a result of the backlash. But again, I think the power to address this Texas-Sized problem should primarily be in the hands of Texans, rather than giant multinationals like Apple.
Mind you, representatives choose their voters to ensure that they will win elections. The power has been removed from voters hands via gerrymandering
You have every right to be an asshole, but you don't have a right to make other people put up with it. If you're going to enact something that a large swath of your population finds deeply offensive, don't be surprised if they leave, and don't be surprised if the economic activity they generate leaves with them.
I have coworkers living in Texas and while they’re disappointed in the ruling, I haven’t heard of a single person planning on moving because of it. Most people I know moved there because of the land, property taxes, climate, etc. The politics situation is unfortunate to them, but not a defining problem. And considering these same people have the resources to get abortions no matter what (not to mention the fact that most abortions happen in low-income, marginalized communities), I don’t foresee many people leaving because of this.
On another note, I know people who were thinking about moving to Texas. They're not now. On the flip side I know people who moved to Austin in the past two years. They're now looking at leaving. One has already done so. This is where renting and working from home is a blessing - you can quickly change residence.
Seems like Apple supports their employees by maintaining offices in different places.
It's not a given that you can transfer between offices for personal (or political) reasons; normally there are requirements based on team & organizational needs.
The actual nail-in-the-coffin for her is the school board situation, although she's pretty furious about the abortion law, the way they've handled COVID, the power utility situation, etc.
For most of the last couple decades you could be liberal in most of the big cities and basically just go about your business. Texas was pretty big on "live and let live", after all. Apparently it's not like that anymore, and the more conservative factions are very in-your-face about owning the libs now.
If I don't like what Amazon is doing, how can I possibly boycott a company that has meshed itself into the backbone of the internet at almost every level? As a Texan, at least I can vote in the next election. I have virtually no power over these big companies.
> Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso.
It's definitely more broken, at least from a democratic perspective. In the free market, you vote with your dollars and shares, and those with more money have more votes (sometimes many orders of magnitude more). One man one vote it ain't.
This idea that you can put yourself into an ideological bubble and just assume that the world outside the bubble is the same as the world inside the bubble is a form of self-deception.
Most people don't hate Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. All these companies have huge user/customer bases. Even when the whole Microsoft is Evil thing was going on, most people were sufficiently self-aware to understand that this was a niche view. For some reason, that connection with reality became unhinged and many people really think they are in the majority now, and that's when they experience these types of coginitive shocks such as realizing that most people in Texas are pro-life or that most Brits voted for Brexit. For some, the shock of reality is so devastating that it deeply wounds them and they start massively freaking out when they see a tear in the fabric of their self-constructed reality.
Note that I am not arguing against self-constructed realities. It's necessary, but you have to keep in mind that
1) odds are most people don't share your views
2) odds are that you yourself will change your mind later in life as you become wiser.
3) odds are very good that your grandchildren will repudiate your views.
The number of views that we have that we can think are truly universal and will stand the test of time is very small, and almost all of them already have existed for a very long time.
Well you're a little late on that, business has been influencing policy since the East India company was chartered in 1600.
I'm perplexed how people don't perceive business has been influencing policy for centuries until they start intervening recently for employees who are women and what have you.
Seeing things as not being political is political unfortunately.
After a war ends, companies can be judged for collaboration with the enemy. Until then, it’s all grey area.
Why does the issue begin and end here for so many people?
> Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies?
What do you mean? Isn't there a huge amount of energy in those areas?
> Or contract with the police or military?
That's not at all like the first two things you listed. Refusing to contract with the police or military (because they're the police or military) is probably a greater interference with democratic government than not siting an office in an area because you don't like the laws the legislature passed.
Apple and many other US employers extended health and other benefits to LGBTQ partners of employees for a couple of decades before Obergefell. Do you think they shouldn't have?
They very much were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
What if a law is being drafted that directly affects their business? Should they still be quiet? Or is there a list of issues that can be vocal about, and a a list of issues they should be quiet about?
Apple's secret power is that they integrate everything really really well. So your laptop works seamlessly with your phone, your watch, and soon Texas too.
I hate to break it to you, but everything IS political, all the time. If you don’t believe that, it’s likely because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular.
I, like you, am a resident of Texas. I think for Apple to do what the article is suggesting is taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws. Politicians need the consent of the governed, and now apparently, the consent of Bay Area corporations who are decidedly progressive.
In other words, your right to have your representatives restrict the liberty of the rest of us Texans for no good reason.
Sadly, the motto of the Texas Legislature seems to be "Local control!" when it comes to national policy — at least if the federal government is controlled by Democrats — but just the opposite when it comes to blue cities' enactment of progressive local ordinances that offend rural conservatives and/or their corporate donors.
(Houstonian here, formerly a lifelong, pretty-conservative Republican.)
There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
Please re-read what I said: I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Texas GOP: Local control for me but not for thee.
And "democracy" does not mean "democratic authoritarianism." (Or as the sour joke went about hard-line Islamist parties during the Arab Spring: One man, one vote, one time.)
Let the large cities in Texas decide if abortion should be allowed within city limits. That's totally possible if the state govt delegates powers to counties/cities. Oh wait, that's small govt but goes against the agenda so it will never happen.
>There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
Not allowing this sounds like an abusive relationship, like a dictatorship like North Korea where people seeking to leave are killed. Just like the Taliban stopping people in Afghanistan from leaving. The new law also comes from an extremist view of a world religion so the argument has a parallel in that they take a dim view of people trying to leave the extremist religion adherence imposed on others.
Yes. That is at the heart of my belief in representative government. And it wasn't my representative alone who voted for this, it was enough of them to get it passed.
I've already stated many times that I think this is an atrocious bill and I hope it gets overturned. But at the very least, it was passed by duly elected representatives and it appears to have withstood the courts (for now).
Indeed, it's hard to find anything that does not somehow touch on group decision making because so little is truly private e.g. want to have a loud party in your apartment? Whether societal norms approve or not will determine you can do that or whether you're forbidden to do that or allowed to potentially bother your neighbors; part of the group.
Once properly framed, the idea is practically tautological. But even without that framing it's usually much more obvious for people for whom the status quo is a rough deal.
Sorry, yes, I do think it's naive to think a business - particularly a trillion dollar omninational - can operate in ignorance of the laws and politics that their staff experience. A business is a construct of between some and a lot of individuals, not an entry in the NASDAQ.
>What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves?
It's a false premise, since there is no additional right, but the employees are voters.
If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.
Frankly, if you need an abortion you can go to another state. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country. Apple could literally offer flights to California for any medical procedure no questions asked and problem solved.
I also don’t see Apple as having the moral high ground here. They employ slaves in China. Apple respects the Chinese government and says nothing. They’re sterilizing people, organ harvesting on live people (Christians and Muslims) in China. But this... this is what people care about?
But... is that what’s this really about?
I don’t think so.
Additionally, Apple does not determine the law. If legislature responds to Apple, that would be due to the structural aspects of democratic government, in other words, the voters want something and will place pressure during elections. And Apple is just one of the many big companies in TX.
The statute is blatantly unconstitutional, and Apple has enough high-powered lawyers to fight any lawsuits.
This methods used were actually similar to the way the old police system worked. They'd put out bounties and citizens would bring people in.
For reference, bail and repos are done in a similar manner and are way more intrusive (taking someones car). I don't really see your point? In this case, someone is merely sued for $10k (as opposed to jail or losing license).
That's fair, I was trying to indicate they could offer all expense paid flights to Cali any time to headquarters or something. Don't ask why, don't even make it related to medical.
I personally have flown to other states & countries for medical procedures. Further, there's a boat load of other methods of mitigating the need for abortions within the law.
It's insane to me that Apple, a business, should apply pressure.
Most people in Texas don't want this insane law either, but gerrymandering diminishes their voices.
edit: downvoters should explain why they are downvoting :)
Are you Texan, or do you have a source for your statement?
This is all so reactionary. As GP pointed out, Apple is fine with a China presence while they sterilize Uighurs and harvest organs.
I live in Texas, yes.
Here you go: https://avowtexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EMBARGO4-29...
Questions 5 through 8 are related to this abortion law.
> Texas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and laws could get even more restrictive due to the makeup of the current U.S. Supreme Court. Generally speaking, do you think that laws regarding abortion access in Texas should be more restrictive, less restrictive, or kept the same as current state law?
We used to call that a leading question.
The Texas legislature voted this into law with a sizeable majority. If the large majority of people are against this law, they should organize, vote new people in, and have it overturned.
The problem with liberals is they're just terrible politicians. Everything is an appeal to the courts or their mega-corporate employers to help establish agendas instead of doing the only thing that works: getting bills signed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling.
I find it disturbing that so many people only think about mothers right to abortion, and have no qualms whatsoever about taking the life of perfectly formed humans and destroying the life they would/could have been living . . .
This is the kind of privileged naivete I come to HN for. The cost of an airplane ticket isn't the only cost to travel out of state for a medical procedure. At a bare minimum you also have to consider the person's time and that many people don't have flexible enough employment to take time off for something like this.
https://qz.com/1702181/a-third-of-americans-dont-get-paid-va...
If you qualify financially, there is a program that helps you pay for travel and board as well as the procedure if you need it.
(the procedure is about $650 which is the bulk of the expense)
Here's a good video about the subject: https://youtu.be/PnO7pL-QWyc
I'm pretty sure this is how the old policing system worked in the U.S. they would set bounties and citizens would bring people in.
In this case, I'm 99% confident it'll be deemed constitutional and isn't really a problem.
States can do what they want, it's extremely problematic that people in other states feel they should apply pressure on people thousands of miles away.
It's incoherent.
I'm pointing out that you everyone should really be focused on local politics. And suggesting the bullies who disagree should leave Texans alone.
This law does almost no damage and from the majority of Texas perspective it's a net positive. I don't see why anyone, especially Apple, should be applying pressure externally.
Saying Apple does bad things elsewhere doesn't make this a non issue. People criticize Apple for these issues and rightly so. Apple criticizing Texas over these issues doesn't change the reality about the issues in Texas.
Apple and everyone else should be criticizing Texas.
I don't care if people discuss at all, but take a moment to think about what you're actually questioning.
You're questioning the choices of the people of another sovereign state. Not only that, but your advocating that because the people of that state believe your killing babies with a heart beat... they should be punished by Apple? a phone manufacturer? By the way, this phone manufacturer literally uses slave labor of Christians and Muslims in China.
If you want to have a discussion, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's really what most people want here. I think they want fascism. Effectively a corporation enacting on a political ideologies behalf. That's dangerous and will lead to massive conflict.
In reality, the people of Texas have the right (via the constitution and state government) and through their representatives, to say they don't think it's okay to kill babies with a heart beat. Imagine if oil companies stopped providing oil to California
If we give companies the power the lobby and push agenda, then yes, I think Apple should be allowed to push social agendas and punish Texas for enacting draconian laws that are designed to hurt women and set the country back decades. Apples actions here and what they do in China can both exist and don't make one action OK because the other is NOT OK. Or are you going to say only the perfect moral entity can have an opinion on any topic? Because there will always be some moral critique of anyone who says anything.
If we are going to let people subject their ridiculous religious beliefs despite the supposed separation of church and state, what's the difference with letting companies? It's just another organized group with lots of money. Why let one get away with it and restrict the other?
Personally, I'd like to see religious groups lose any tax benefit if they participate in politics. I'd also like to see Citizens United overturned and get corporate money out of politics. But given the status quo, if corporations want to fight the religious right pushing their anti-women agenda? It's better than saying 'companies shouldn't be involved in politics.'
By your own argument, companies have the right to not employ people in a State that is pushing an agenda against a protected class of people. The current set of laws says this is OK, ergo, Apple has the right to do it. This is the same logic that the people of Texas have the right to enact a draconian anti abortion bill. The rest of the country, people and companies, have the right to say fuck off and try to change the law.
Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees.
This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no?
Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that.
Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected.
I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous.
Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street.
I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.
Over time this perk grows across the Texas economy and causes political change, or continues to be a few companies offer it and people can virtue signal by choosing where they work.
There are many reasons (e.g. abortion is a very private and personal matter and most people probably wouldn't want to involve their employer), but primarily, it would count as assisting abortion and could open Apple to liability under this law.
1. Accelerating the trend of companies taking sides on political issues. Think about how many companies you use and imagine half of them taking your side, and the other half taking the opposing side.
2. Expanding the already outsized influence of corporations in government.
3. Apple having to contend with their China-Sized Problem re: factory workers, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Uyghur population.
This sort of presumes that Texas is an empty plot of land where no one lives. This is obviously not the case. There are millions of people that live there and need jobs. So what about women who want to work for a cool consumer technology company and are anti-abortion. Why would it be "untenable" to hire those women?
Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem for those who strongly prefer to live in a state where nobody’s allowed to have an abortion.
Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term -- even an especially risky one, or one that's the result of rape or incest -- has significant impacts on both the mother and the community that could be net negative instead of positive.
Everything about a vaccination is supposed to have net positive effects, both for the individual recipient and the public health and welfare.
I like reading Gruber usually, but this comment is completely asinine.
Each small mandate will add up over time to something we cannot currently imagine.
Take the executive order mandating vaccination for companies with over 100 employees.
Say this is challenged in court and it is upheld on some grounds. This might set some precedent. Then say at some point later the Texas law goes before SCOTUS. The initial precedent might provide a win for Texas.
This is all speculation, but it not entirely out of the real of possibility.