← Topics / Bounty Hunting Mercenaries, the Abolitioniusts
Bounty Hunting Mercenaries, the Abolitioniusts
I know but that has come up and social media and the news about laws that would give bounties for turning in mothers who have or may have taken the life of their child through child sacrifice, abortion. I know that those who hate God would use any real or contrived message to paint abolitionists as bloodthirsty gore enjoying demons who are emptying the stores of popping corn waiting for the chance to see any 12-year-old girl who was raped be gunned down by a firing squad or fried on the electric chair. We know that those who hate God will use any opportunity to lie cheat and steal the trust created by fear in the American voter to try and shame anyone from moving any closer today toward abolition. I have to say that at this point in time I'm leaning away from the idea of bounties to try to find people and prosecute them for a crime of prenatal homicide. And I'm still thinking through it. Did God describe or prescribe the use of bounties in his law, or did he just command us to do justice. Putting the responsibility on us to do the right thing regardless. And for the believer that would carry even more weight than a financial bounty, would it not? I think sometimes we make laws based on our understanding that we know people are greedy and that they will be incentivized to do things for financial reward which they would not do for as a moral responsibility to the lawgiver. That's my primary reason for thinking it's a bad idea. But I think the discussion should be had, and I can't recall any Q&as or podcasts regarding this. If there are any, put them here or share in the call to contend chat so that I might be able to listen to the arguments on both sides. As far as being pragmatic with the laws that we have for other murder, I have never really thought about it deeply, to my shame, that we would have bounties or rewards for turning in murderers of other people, born people. So for all the people who would say we should not have bounties to turn in the murderer of a
posted by ImagoDeiVA
// Notes
Sign in to contribute →i had a number of videos for me to watch and then accidently lost them, sigh...
- Francis 'Beto' o'Rourke on the topic https://youtu.be/M8EHt6HzViA?si=jgtGj80nYiF1HEjS
- 4 years ago.... https://youtu.be/M8EHt6HzViA?si=HL93S80ASwfSJM4m
- center for reproductive rights? https://youtu.be/jyHZ6BrjmL4?si=U-F6iGWAeL6jBjQT
- targeting De? https://youtu.be/32clvzK4zs4?si=OqacTlvz_MQhNChw
- Merrik Garland? https://youtu.be/JObcY-456Y4?si=W10FDHKxe1ifO9_d
- Shelia Jackson Lee https://youtu.be/X6VxnmJtT5w?si=i1B2BN03N59gU_Mq
- review or discussion? https://youtu.be/Iry8LgHffls?si=FdDNXWW8_l72Rm6s
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts
2
See new posts
Looking at public records of civil actions or law suits in Texas for claims of a person having an abortion or anyone aiding or abetting or soliciting or encouraging or suggesting someone have an abortion since the time that the SCOTUS ruled in favor to the Texas law permitting the civil suits, how many civil cases have been heard or tried and out of those how many have succeeded and make a table of these from the most recent to the oldest by date and provide the name of the person bringing the suit and the person being sued and the basis for the suit. Then give totals of the cases brought and cases won and lost. You may use news articles and reports for research but only use those cases documented as having been filed, heard, and adjudicated unless there are any pending verdict or judgement. You are to be the best paralegal expert researcher in the world and we are focusing on Texas cases alone right now and that should include cases even if the person bringing the case resides outside of the state of Texas. Make sure that is in the table as well. Questions?
Thought for 9s
Very few (essentially one documented and resolved) SB 8 private enforcement civil cases have been heard/adjudicated in Texas courts since the law took effect on September 1, 2021.
reproductiverights.org +1
SB 8 (Texas Heartbeat Act) allows any person (other than state/local officials) to file civil suits in Texas state court against anyone who performs, aids/abets, or intends to aid/abet an abortion after detectable fetal cardiac activity (~6 weeks), with mandatory minimum damages of $10,000 per abortion plus attorney fees/costs and injunctive relief for successful plaintiffs. Defendants cannot recover their own fees even if they win. The law applies to actions in Texas and has been used (or attempted) against out-of-state actors in some contexts, but the focus here is on filed/heard/adjudicated cases per your criteria.
congress.gov
Key Findings from ResearchChallenges to the law itself (pre-enforcement suits by providers/funds seeking to declare SB 8 unconstitutional, or federal suits like Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas) are not counted here. These are not private enforcement actions for specific alleged violations. Many such cases were filed/consolidated (e.g., ~14 against Texas Right to Life entities in Travis County), with mixed procedural outcomes but no full merits trials on individual abortions as of the latest reports.
en.wikipedia.org
Private enforcement ("bounty hunter") suits have been rare in practice, despite the law's design. The chilling effect deterred widespread filing, and most potential cases appear to have been exploratory (e.g., Rule 202 pre-suit discovery petitions) rather than full suits that reached hearings/trials/judgments. News and legal reports consistently describe very low numbers of actual enforcement actions.
npr.org
The only documented case that was filed, heard, and adjudicated on the merits (dismissed) is one involving Dr. Alan Braid. Others filed against him were not fully pursued/served. No widespread successful (or even fully tried) cases appear in public records or reliable reporting up to 2026. Some later activity (e.g., involving Lilith Fund) involves pre-suit petitions or countersuits over constitutionality/SLAPP issues, not resolved SB 8 violation judgments.
reproductiverights.org +1
Table of Cases (Most Recent to Oldest)Limited to cases documented as filed, heard, and adjudicated (or with final judgment/pending verdict per your instructions). Only one qualifies.Case 1 (Only Adjudicated Case) Date of Ruling: December 8, 2022 (dismissed; order followed)
Plaintiff (Bringing Suit): Felipe Gomez (Chicago/Illinois resident; out-of-state plaintiff)
Defendant (Being Sued): Dr. Alan Braid (Texas physician/abortion provider)
Basis for Suit: Dr. Braid publicly admitted in a Washington Post op-ed to performing an abortion on September 6, 2021 (after SB 8's effective date and after detectable heartbeat), as a deliberate test of the law. Gomez sued under SB 8 for performing/aiding a prohibited abortion, seeking $10,000+ statutory damages, fees, and injunctive relief.
reproductiverights.org +1
Outcome: Dismissed by Texas state court (Bexar County/San Antonio). The court ruled the plaintiff lacked standing, as a bystander with no direct connection/impact from the abortion could not sue. This was the first (and apparently only) SB 8 enforcement case resolved by a court. Plaintiff reportedly planned to appeal.
reproductiverights.org
Other Notes on Potential/Non-Qualifying Cases:Two additional suits were filed against Dr. Braid shortly after his op-ed (by an Arkansas resident and Texas Heartbeat Project), plus related federal interpleader by Braid. These were not fully served/prosecuted to adjudication in the same way.
commonwealthfund.org
Later exploratory actions (e.g., Sadie Weldon v. Lilith Fund, ~2022 onward, involving pre-suit deposition/Rule 202 petition over alleged aiding of an abortion, leading to countersuit on constitutionality and TCPA/SLAPP issues) reached the Texas Supreme Court but center on procedural/constitutional challenges rather than a resolved SB 8 violation judgment on specific facts.
houstonpublicmedia.org
No other fully adjudicated private enforcement wins/losses on the merits are widely documented in news, court reports, or legal analyses through 2026. Many reports emphasize the law's deterrent effect over actual litigation volume.
TotalsCases Brought/Fully Filed and Pursued to Hearing/Adjudication: Extremely low (1 primary resolved case; a handful filed but not comparably adjudicated).
reproductiverights.org
Cases Won (by Plaintiff/Enforcer): 0 (the one adjudicated case was dismissed).
reproductiverights.org
Cases Lost/Dismissed (by Plaintiff): 1 (the Braid/Gomez case).
reproductiverights.org
Pending/Other: Some pre-suit or ongoing procedural matters exist, but none appear to have yielded additional resolved violation judgments meeting your criteria. Post-Dobbs (2022), overlapping criminal/trigger bans reduced reliance on SB 8 civil suits.
Sources and Caveats: This is based on comprehensive searches of news reports (e.g., Texas Tribune, Center for Reproductive Rights, NPR), legal analyses, court summaries, and Wikipedia compilations. Texas state court dockets are not fully centralized/publicly searchable in one database for exhaustive counts without direct PACER/state access, but reliable secondary sources (advocacy groups, journalists tracking the law) consistently report minimal enforcement activity. No evidence of numerous successful "bounty" payouts or trials. If more cases exist in obscure dockets, they have not been publicly reported as adjudicated.
texastribune.org
This aligns with expert paralegal-level research focusing solely on Texas SB 8 private civil enforcement actions. Let me know if you need deeper dives into specific dockets, related post-Dobbs cases, or expansion beyond Texas.
7 web pages
Analyze standing rulings in Gomez v Braid
Examine Texas trigger ban criminal prosecutions
Fast
NEWS ANALYSIS BY GROK
Can you provide an analysis of the top 30 news outlets in any format for the number of articles that lean toward agreement with the pro abortion demographic and give your rational of why you graded them that way group them in a scale of -5 to +5 with 0 being neutral and -5 being pro abortion.
Thought for 4s
Analysis of Top ~30 Major US News Outlets on Texas SB 8 Coverage (Bounty/Civil Liability Provisions)This assessment draws from established media bias resources (AllSides, Ad Fontes Media), patterns in coverage of Texas SB 8 (2021–2026), language used ("bounty hunter," "vigilante," "unconstitutional," "chilling effect" vs. "private enforcement," "heartbeat," "protecting life"), framing (focus on access barriers/harms vs. enforcement mechanisms/constitutionality), and overall editorial stance on abortion.
allsides.com +1
Scale (per user request): -5: Strongly leans pro-abortion (consistent critical framing of SB 8 as harmful/vigilante/unconstitutional, advocacy tone, minimal balance on pro-life arguments).
-4 to -1: Mild to moderate lean pro-abortion (predominantly critical coverage with some balance).
0: Neutral (fact-focused, balanced perspectives from both sides).
+1 to +5: Lean anti-abortion/pro-SB 8 (positive or neutral framing of private enforcement, emphasis on fetal rights).
Ratings reflect general output on this topic, not every single article. Pro-abortion demographic alignment typically favors expansive access and views restrictions like SB 8 negatively. Actual article counts vary widely by outlet size/traffic; major left-leaning outlets published far more pieces overall. No outlet is monolithic—exceptions exist.Strongly Pro-Abortion Lean (-5)These outlets heavily criticized SB 8's bounty mechanism as unprecedented harassment, emphasized harms to women/access, and highlighted challenges to the law. High volume of coverage. CNN: -5 (Frequent "bounty hunter" framing, focus on constitutional threats and patient stories).
The New York Times: -5 (In-depth critical reporting, op-eds against the law).
The Washington Post: -5 (Strong editorial opposition, detailed on chilling effects).
NBC News / MSNBC: -5 (Advocacy-style coverage, especially MSNBC).
Los Angeles Times: -5.
The Guardian (prominent in US coverage): -5.
NPR / PBS: -4 to -5 (Public broadcasting tone critical of restrictions).
ABC News: -4.
CBS News: -4.
HuffPost / Vice: -5.
Moderate Pro-Abortion Lean (-3 to -4)USA Today: -3 (Mainstream but often highlights access issues).
Associated Press (AP): -2 to -3 (Straight news but word choice leans critical; widely syndicated).
Reuters: -1 to -2 (More neutral wire service).
Axios: -3.
Politico: -3 (Policy-focused but critical of novel enforcement).
Bloomberg: -2 (Business lens notes economic/medical impacts).
Near Neutral / Slight Lean ( -1 to +1 )Wall Street Journal (News): 0 to +1 (Fact-based news reporting; opinion page more conservative).
allsides.com
Forbes: 0 (Mixed, business angle).
Newsweek: -1 to 0.
BBC News (US audience): -2 (International perspective critical of US restrictions).
Slight to Moderate Anti-Abortion / Pro-Enforcement Lean (+1 to +3)Fewer major outlets here; conservative ones provided more positive or defensive coverage of SB 8 as innovative accountability. Lower volume on "bounty" criticism. Fox News: +3 (Framed as legitimate private right of action, criticized opponents).
New York Post: +2 to +3.
The Daily Wire / National Review (if including digital): +4 to +5.
Breitbart: +5 (Strong support for the law).
Washington Times / One America News: +4.
Summary of Distribution (Approximate Top 30 Outlets): -5 to -4 (Strong Pro-Abortion Lean): ~12–15 outlets (major legacy like NYT, WaPo, networks). These produced the highest volume of articles overall, often agreeing with pro-abortion views on SB 8.
-3 to -1 (Mild Lean): ~8–10 outlets.
0 (Neutral): ~3–5 (wire services, some business outlets).
+1 to +5 (Anti-Lean): ~4–6 (conservative outlets).
Rationale for Grading: Language & Framing: Outlets rated negative heavily used terms like "vigilante," "bounty hunter scheme," "draconian," and focused on burdens to patients/providers/funds (e.g., Lilith Fund cases). Positive outlets emphasized "private enforcement," "protecting unborn," and deterrence of illegal abortions.
npr.org +1
Balance & Sourcing: Negative outlets disproportionately sourced reproductive rights groups; positive ones sourced anti-abortion advocates or Texas officials. Neutrals stuck to "Texas law allows suits for..." with both sides.
Volume & Tone: Left-leaning majors drove narrative volume with sympathetic patient stories and legal challenge coverage. Right-leaning focused less on volume but defended the mechanism.
Consistency with Bias Charts: Aligns with AllSides/Ad Fontes ratings on social/cultural issues like abortion.
allsides.com +1
Caveats: Bias is subjective; some outlets improved balance post-Dobbs. Digital-native and local Texas outlets (e.g., Texas Tribune) vary but often lean critical. Ratings are topic-specific to SB 8, not general politics.
This reflects broad patterns from reporting on the topic. For deeper quantitative analysis (e.g., specific article counts per outlet), more granular searches or tools would be needed. Let me know if you'd like examples or expansion on any outlet.
5 web pages
Analyze specific article language patterns
Compare bias ratings across outlets
( test adding more notes. I will delete this after adding it)
// Discussion 6
I ran out of characters. I hope I don't run out of character! I will try to sum this up. That I think We as Christians and especially abolitionists, should have a biblical response to this issue or type of law giving cash rewards as bounties no matter who is murdered. But since we are for the abolition of the preborn murder I think it is especially relevant because it is and will continue to be something one of the things, that the ProAborts, and the pro-life movement will use to oppose the idea of abolition.
I didn't realize there was a limit...I'll convert it to a text field.
I fixed the content limit. You can now have 1m of text. That should be enough to let you dump half your thoughts.
If this law has been in effect for THIS LONG, then where are the thousands of zealots have claimed the bounty? Going to try and add my grok search of tx civil cases brought.
trying to make more reads le...
My hypothesis is that the left and pro life people continue to fear monger that the bounties will promote zealots to hunt down women for the bounty money even if they have a miscarriage. The civil public records are showing that is not the case and the news outlets and social media seem to continue to push the message of fear. I do not believe that we should rely on cases lay, civil suits or social media or even grok to inform us of what we ought to do and ought not to do, but rather to turn to the Word of GOD for moral clarity, but even the evidence of history expressed in facts is showing that the claims made are not coming true in reality even when the possibility of evil greed is very present and a motivating factor, and even that it seems that the left has not been able to push a credible or even fabricated claim of bounty hunters abounding for any reason. I think that at this point my claim is that I would not support bounties because I don't believe that are part of GOD's plan and not are they even practical or beneficial. I think Scott Klusendorf should have done some research for his claims.
Sign in as a member to join the discussion.
// edits
- Jun 4, 2026, 12:47 PM Scott Pierce
- May 27, 2026, 8:54 AM ImagoDeiVA — Added reporting and analysis of news coverage over that time.
- May 27, 2026, 7:38 AM ImagoDeiVA — Moved grok research here I think.
- May 27, 2026, 7:00 AM ImagoDeiVA