Free Speech

"A Narrative Summary Describing How the … Taxpayer … Shares California's Values with Regard to Women's Reproductive Rights"

That's what a California bill (passed 76-0 by Assembly and 6-0 and 5-2 by Senate committees) would ask film tax credit seekers to provide in their tax credit application.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Jon Healey, L.A. Times Deputy Editorial Page Editor, flags this today:

The bill … would offer an additional $50 million in tax credits to film and TV producers who locate their productions in California at least in part because of the restrictive abortion laws in other states. Subsidy applicants would have to submit "a narrative summary describing how the qualified taxpayer, and any relevant activities during the production period, shares California's values with regard to women's reproductive rights," which would be a factor in the California Film Commission's decisions about whom to fund.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the bill's title is the "Share Our Values Tax Credit."

Healey condemns this, and I agree: Denying a grant or other benefit (including a tax credit) to a person or group based on its ideology is a clear First Amendment violation.

The Court reaffirmed that just in 2013, in U.S. Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, when it struck down a policy that denied HIV-prevention grants to any organization "that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." "[T]he Government," the Court held "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected … freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit."  And this of course applies just as much to tax rules—"a discriminatory denial of a tax exemption for engaging in speech is a limitation on free speech" (Speiser v. Randall (1958)).

Now, unlike the law in USAID v. AOSI, this law merely requires people to describe how the applicant "shares California's values with regard to women's reproductive rights." But why would it ask for such a description if it didn't plan on giving an advantage to people and organizations who have certain "values" on this subject, and discriminating against those who have the opposite values? And indeed the very process of asking about this can deter applicants from expressing "values" contrary to the government's.

Advertisement

NEXT: TSA Bans Coke Bottles That Resemble Fictional Star Wars Explosives

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hmmm. It sounds like they are not subsidizing the filmmaker’s ideology, but the filmmaker’s boycott. It might be necessary to distinguish this from the anti-BDS law cases.

    1. If an anti-BDS statute required contractors to explain how they shared the state’s values with regard to Israel, that would of course be just as unconstitutional. Conversely, if a California law required contractors to certify that they don’t discriminate against women who have gotten abortions, that would be just as constitutional, I think, as anti-BDS laws are.

      1. “Conversely, if a California law required contractors to certify that they don’t discriminate against women who have gotten abortions, that would be just as constitutional, I think, as anti-BDS laws are”

        Please clarify. Are you saying that both anti-BDS laws and a law requiring certification that a contractor does not discriminate against women who had abortions are constitutional? or that both are NOT constitutional?

        I do not see why anti-BDS laws are constitutional at all, based on the libertarian position that government should have no power to tell me with whom I may or may not conduct lawful business activity.

        1. You’re essentially arguing that you have a right to contract with an entity that doesn’t want to contract with you. To what level does this extend, can I demand that my local government contract with me for emu wrangling services, whether or not they have a need for such services, simply because they “have no power to tell me with whom I may or may not conduct lawful business activity.”

        2. Both are constitutional, anti BDS laws, and laws requiring people not to discriminate against those who get abortions.

          The libertarian position, and constitutional law do not necessarily overlap 100% of the time.

      2. Thanks, Professor!

    2. ” It sounds like they are not subsidizing the filmmaker’s ideology, but the filmmaker’s boycott. It might be necessary to distinguish this from the anti-BDS law cases.”

      Hold on. The business-people put up big piles of money to produce shows. If their production is disrupted because their staff suddently won’t work unless the production is moved out of the state the producers planned to use (and the subsidies that that state had offered to productions sited there.), that’s disruptive to the business, even if the producers would have been happy to go ahead and make the project there, and even if a lot of the staff (employees and contractors) would have been happy to make the project there. If the producer can’t (or won’t) move the production, and the people who refuse to work there can’t be replaced, the production grinds to a halt, putting a bunch of people out of work, who are suddenly filing unemployment claims. Unemployment claims in CALIFORNIA. So the state has an interest in restarting those productions, and if what it takes is a bit of subsidy to get them going again in a different state, it might be cheaper to subsidize the studios costs of moving production locales than to pay all the enemployment claims of the people put out of work. At the same time, they only want to subsidize those productions that really were displaced by the issue du jour, and not every production looking to pick up a few extra bucks of subsidy for filing the paperwork. So the subsidy applicants have to prove that they need the subsidy because of boycotts of California workers caused by workers protesting other states’ reproductive rights legislation, and not caused by “we can get a subsidy for moving a production from state A to state B? Sign us up! If the subsidy is high enough, we can move production…”

      1. I don’t think that “people who refuse to work” can file for unemployment.

        1. If the production shuts down because the star won’t show on set, all the other cast and crew are unemployed by layoff, and can legally and ethically file for unemployment insurance.

  2. Secession would provide the path that the state legislators want to tread.

    Just trying to be helpful.

    1. California is the 5th largest economy in the world and provides the US with a not so insignificant share of its food (among other items)

      How exactly do you expect to replace that?

      1. Free trade agreements between the Republic of California and the United States of America, I imagine.

      2. CA also has 30-40% of the nation’s welfare recipients despite having only 12% or so of it’s population. It would likely net even.

      3. I always wondered who really needs who more. I get the feeling that both sides will be hurt but yuppie Californian ethnic studies majors will be be in for an especially rude awakening.

        1. Playing over in your mind hypotheticals about who will be hurt more is a telling thing to dwell on.

      4. You have a point. Instead, let’s sell California to Denmark.

        Asking price: Either Greenland or one container ship full of butter cookies and Legos.

        1. That’s mean to Denmark.

          Let’s sell it to Russia instead. I’m not sure who will come out worse. Putin or Gavin

      5. 1. Offload a big chunk of the national debt on CA.
        2. Not have to pay CA’s disproportionate load for Medicaid.
        3. Enjoy continued corporate tax income, as most of the CA corporations are incorporated in DE

        Just a few thoughts. I’m sure there are more.

        1. Enjoy continued corporate tax income, as most of the CA corporations are incorporated in DE

          Yes, for as long as it took CA to realize its ability to tax Delaware corporations was no longer constrained by the Commerce Clause or the Interstate Income Act.

      6. “How exactly do you expect to replace that?”

        Maybe California would be interested in some of our water?

        1. Bonus. If California wants to leave, I think the red counties in CA should be able to secede from Blue land. Call it “Eastern California”.

          1. There is zero incentive for the farming portions of the state to stay with the California Republic.

          2. And suddenly Kim Wilde’s lyric goes from ridiculous to sublime.

          3. ” I think the red counties in CA should be able to secede from Blue land. Call it “Eastern California”.”

            The ones in the North want their new state to be called “Jefferson”. Alas, the time to slice California up into smaller states was before statehood was granted, as was done with the Oregon territory.

        2. “Maybe California would be interested in some of our water?” And electrical power. CA has been moving those dirty power plants to other states for about 50 years.

    2. Scott….I don’t think it is helpful to promote secession. The last time that happened, we had a civil war that killed 600K+ people.

      1. To even dream of it you’d need 3/4 of the people to want it, and only then get on bended knee to Congress.

        Good luck convincing the national democrats to give up CA’s blue electors to the other states.

        Remember the only reason CA is “upset” is because their politicians are full-throated in resistance to Trump. And the only reason, politically, they do that is to achieve national power.

        CA “wanting” to leave is rhetoric serving those politicians, but CA actually leaving does not.

      2. Only because the USA used force to prevent the secession. No one would bother with California. Well, at least with the parts of California that are not US federal lands. Besides, there are no guns in CA.
        I have not determined where in the world’s economies California will rank without all of the payrolls and tax income from the US military and defense industry move away. But way lower than the position they claim.
        If the US hangs onto the bases, like it did with Gitmo, and refuses to yield up the national parks, what then? All current holders of a US security clearance would have to leave CA or forfeit their clearance, creating a huge unemployment burden. The defense contractors like Northrop, Lockeed, etc would have to relocate to keep doing defense contracts. Not to mention the necessity of creating a new currency and having it accepted by the rest of the world. And as was mentioned, who will sell them water? And at what price? Further on the plus side, all the California delegations to the House & Senate will go away.

        1. US defense contractors don’t have to be located in the US.

          1. They don’t even have to be American companies, controlled by Americans. The AV-8A was developed by a British company.

  3. Oh, I didn’t realize that “California” has values. I thought corporations couldn’t be people. Only people can have values.

    But of course, I only speak in jest. These kinds of things have nothing to do with logic.

    1. California is a corporation?

      1. It is something far worse, a state.

        1. Ew?

  4. Abortion a become a peculiar institution

    1. ???

      1. “Peculiar institution” is perhaps among the most famous euphemisms in history. It refers to slavery in the southern United States. “Peculiar” means “distinctive.”

        See also “domestic institutions,” “different labor systems,” “reproductive health,” “medical procedures,” etc.

        1. It’s a deep cut these days – I dimly remember it from middle school history.

          Quite the virtue signal to say ‘abortion is becoming like slavery!’ and leave it there.

          1. I know, right? It’s more like a final solution to the unwanted baby question.

              1. Empty virtue signaling by bringing in Hitler.

                How very Internet.

                1. “Empty virtue signaling by bringing in Hitler.”

                  Says the guy that defended the “OMG!!!! Concentration Camps!!!!” thing.

                  Remove the plank from your own eye before you criticize your neighbor for the splinter in his……..

                  1. What I don’t do is say ‘yo – concentration camps!’ and then nothing else.

                    Lotsa posts here just saying ‘abortion is like this evul thing’ and that’s the entire post.

                2. It’s not empty virtue signaling, slacktivism maybe, but it’s an apt historical comparison. Only the abortionist are worse than Hitler and more long-running, they have killed over 60 million unwanted babies and you are complicit.

                  1. If I’m complicit, so are you. If it’s as bad as you say, just virtue signaling about it on the Internet is far insufficient.

                    Anyhow, quit begging the question.

                    1. More to the point, if you aren’t complicit, you aren’t.

                      Just like believing that the government can go to war doesn’t make you a murderer.

                      Number of abortions I have performed: 0
                      Number of abortions I have directed to be performed: 0

                      But… just because I don’t WANT an abortion, that doesn’t mean I want to be told I can’t have one.

  5. “passed 76-0 by Assembly”

    That includes 16 GOP by my count [61 Dem, 1 vacant and 18 GOP per wikipedia]

    The state is completely gone over to Moloch now.

    1. And the CA GOP wonders why no one takes them seriously.

    2. Was it a 76-0 roll call vote, or just the usual ‘unanimous’ voice vote where anybody saying ‘nay’ just conveniently wasn’t heard?

      Voice votes are frequently used to circumvent quorum requirements in legislative bodies.

      1. That’s the way the Hughes Amendment was passed

  6. Child murder as a “value”.

    1. But once out of the womb – it’s open season and their lives no longer matter to so called “conservatives” like yourself.

      1. Right to life doesn’t mean you can fuck yourself over and expect us to keep you alive. It means you’ll get a chance to live and be responsible for yourself. That’s what is so egregious about abortions. No matter the reason, even if it’s a practical or reasonable, we’re still ending a life that typically would have been and could have expressed agency of its own one day. That’s why every abortion is sad, even the ones where it’s understandable why it must happen. We used to say “safe, legal and rare” and that’s the most compassionate and reasonable position that sadly very few people seem to espouse at this point.

        That’s part of why extremism is on the rise. The tone deafness of abortion advocates has reached a level where people openly talk about post-birth abortion like it’s a condom. Conversely, anti-abortion activists talk about jailing mothers like it’s going out of style. Very troubling trends in both directions.

        1. “abortion advocates”???

          You can hardly walk down main street without someone stepping up and trying to sell you an abortion. And all those robocalls! And the way they go door-to-door, asking you to consider aborting a child, whether you’re currently pregnant (or even capable of becoming pregnant). Not to mention all those billboards asking would-be mothers to consider abortion instead.

          1. Semantic arguments where you take a word with multiple meanings and apply the most literal and absurd reading possible sure are effective.

            1. Fine. There are no abortion advocates. Nobody advocates for abortions. Whining about all the abortion advocates is literally crying over nothing. Happy now?

      2. The left is supporting 4th trimester abortions these days, with withholding care from babies of botched abortions, so it is really open season until you leave the hospital.

        1. By “the left”, I’m assuming you mean right-wing radio hosts speaking for “the left”?

          1. No, I mean the Democrat Governor of VA. I am not surprised, considering the different media environments the left and right inhabit, that you have not heard of this recent gem, from just a few months ago.

            From a news story on the issue, with direct quotes: NBC Washington’s Julie Carey asked Northam whether he supported a bill proposed by Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran (D), which would allow abortions–up to the moment of birth.
            In response, Northam said that a baby born alive could be “kept comfortable” and then “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired”…..“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

            Northam also said he thought that the reaction to Tran’s bill was “really blown out of proportion.”

            He also emphasized that the decision to allow babies to die should be left to “the mothers and their providers.”

            1. That was a bout terminally ill kids, dude.

              The amount the pro-life side chooses to lie about facts makes me wonder about their ideological convictions.

              1. “terminally ill kids”

                No, it was about children with birth disabilities, some of which might kill them fairly soon. Of course such innovations never end with the disabled.

                The amount the anti-life side chooses to lie about facts makes me wonder about their ideological convictions.

                1. So it is a lie, but might be true sometime if you make some serious assumptions.

                  Still a lie. And no amount of yelling that the other side are the real liars makes it any less disingenuous.

                  1. Not a lie at all, just uncomfortable for you to confront. A baby born with a birth defect was a human being, even by the left’s definition, until recently. Somehow the trip down the birth canal magically used to bestow personhood. Not anymore.

                    But what do I care? We need more black babies aborted anyway, so I’m all for abortion.

                    1. You worked hard no to mention the birth defect bit in your quote.

                      So don’t pretend it’s about the humanity of babies born with birth defects.

                      It was about lying to pretend something bout pro choice that is not the case.

                    2. Here’s a video of the interview…. Watch a 3:22 minute video with no edits .

                      Lot of trouble?…not really…but it’s nice to see how far you’ll go to pretend a human life isn’t a human life.

                      So tell me, how does a birth defect matter when a baby is born alive as to whether it’s human or not? I guess Northam just wants the mother to be the one to decide to expose the baby on the hillside or throw it in a pit like the Greeks used to do, or perhaps she could decide to give it to Moloch instead.

                    3. You’re the one pretending, making it look like the issue under discussion isn’t what it is.

                      Allowing palliative care for terminally ill humans is not monstrous at any age.

                      I guess Northam just wants the mother to be the one to decide to expose the baby on the hillside
                      This kind of fanciful sarcastic rhetoric is a clue – you’re hiding behind your outrage.

                    4. Outrage? No, just sad resignation at your sophistry. Nice to know you have telepathy to boot. What stocks should I pick…do a quick scan of Jeff Bezos for me.

                      It’s not about palliative care, it never was.

                    5. What are you saying it wasn’t about palliative care? The law in question was indeed about terminal care for infants, paralleling it to terminal care for adults.

                      Stop lying about it to get your moral jollies off. Nothing wrong with taking a moral stand, but you need to take it with respect to reality.

                      That you cannot is telling.

                    6. “how does a birth defect matter when a baby is born alive as to whether it’s human or not?”

                      It doesn’t.
                      It may matter, however, on whether or not the medical proxy wants to expend resources on artificially extending the kid’s life or not.

                  2. Not a lie at all.

                    Its the next step, 50 years of saying unborn babies are not human leads inevitably to post birth “abortion” of undesirables who slip thru the abortion screen. You just don’t want to face it so you misdirect.

                    1. You may think it’s the next step, but until it is you don’t get to pretend it’s reality.

                    2. If you don’t think it is already happened/ing, then you must be unaware of the details from the Gosnell Trial .

                    3. Now that’s a top tier argument. In a different context, you’re saying that were I alive in 1930s Germany, I shouldn’t be allowed to pretend it’s reality that Nazis want to genocide my people because they haven’t done it yet even though it’s painfully obvious.

                    4. Gosnell. You mean the guy who went on trial? Yeah, he seems a policy leader.

                      The amount the Pro Life side works to curate fictional enemies is remarkable.

                    5. Nice movement of the goalposts. Define a “policy leader” of the left for us then, and we can get down to brass tacks.

                      Gosnell is the inevitable conclusion, even before this push of “up to birth abortion laws,” of what happens when abortion is unrestricted.

                    6. Gosnell isn’t a sign of what the next step in what’s allowed is. As the universal reaction to him indicates.

                      Anyone claiming otherwise is likely not even fooling themselves.

                      Your slippery slope argument sucks.

                    7. You think it sucks, because it’s already come true.

                      Tell me, what press coverage and universal condemnation did he receive? Virtually no press except in a few right wing outlets. Ask yourself why. A tweet in bad taste about getting AIDS in Africa gets more press.

                      Now, give us some thought leaders or policy leaders, if you’re so inclined.

                      Further, (again) what difference does a birth defect make to whether one is human or not?

                    8. Gosnel got virtually no press? That’s delusional.

                      If Gosnel has already become normalized, where’s your evidence?

                      No thought or policy leaders endorse what he was doing, I can name all of them.

                      We’re not talking about who is human, we’re talking about when nonheroic measures are allowed for terminal patients of all ages.

                      Lifesitenews lies. Because they have an agenda. And they’ve made you into a useful idiot. Check other sources.

                    9. “Gosnel got virtually no press? That’s delusional.”

                      Only during the actual trial Before that, nothing.

                      Well known pro-life The Atlantic:

                      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/14-theories-for-why-kermit-gosnells-case-didnt-get-more-media-attention

                    10. Quibbling that it got covered, but not as early as you’d like is not at all the same as it got memory-holed.

                      The trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist charged with killing babies and neglecting women in his care, is now national news. There’s no bigger story on the web. Anderson Cooper covered it thoroughly Friday on CNN. The Washington Post’s executive editor pledged to send a reporter to file dispatches from the Philadelphia courtroom. My contribution, “Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story,” distilled the Philadelphia grand jury report and argued that those horrific, detailed allegations are thoroughly newsworthy by any reasonable standard. That premise is now conventional wisdom. The trial is likely to remain national news.

                      My article didn’t speculate about why the story didn’t play bigger in the national media prior to late last week. I didn’t want that debate to overshadow Gosnell’s actions or the failure to stop him.

                      That’s not about burying the story.

                    11. “If you don’t think it is already happened/ing, then you must be unaware of the details from the Gosnell Trial .”

                      What you’re being asked to justify, then, is your apparent claim that the actions of one person should be imputed to an entire half of the political spectrum.

                      I get it, it’s tough to actually find ANY issue that actually unites the left half of the political spectrum, beyond “Donald Trump is an incompetent boob”. But that doesn’t mean that you can just assign them whatever opinion you’d like to oppose.

                    12. “Its the next step, 50 years of saying unborn babies are not human leads inevitably to post birth ‘abortion’ of undesirables who slip thru the abortion screen.”

                      Psst. Your wishful thinking is showing.

                    13. “Only during the actual trial Before that, nothing.”

                      You never heard anything bad about Ted Bundy before he went on trial, either. Obviously a huge liberal media elite conspiracy to cover up woman-murdering criminals, because that’s what all leftists are in favor of.

              2. “That was a bout terminally ill kids, dude.”

                Bullshit.

                The Gov says that third trimester abortions are generally done in cases of birth defects, but he was responding to question about a viable baby born alive after an attempted abortion. “We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.” The means that the government doesn’t get to restrict the decision to cases of terminally ill children.

      3. “But once out of the womb – it’s open season and their lives no longer matter to so called “conservatives” like yourself.”

        Yep that’s right. Conservatives support legalized killing of living humans for convenience, once they’re born.

        Really, it’s amazing people this dumb even manage to use a computer.

        1. Do these pro-aborts realize how extreme they sound?

          1. Well, it’s a way to try to boomerang guilt. You see, unless you support the elaborate cradle to grave welfare state they also want for Julia, such as food stamps, Head Start, gov’t health care, and so on, then you don’t *really* care about human life.

            1. Right. According to them, if you really care about people, you’ll support communism like they do. Which killed how many? The theme seems to be that murder is love, and death is really what’s best for you. Yet Bernie was praising China the other day for its wonderful communist ways of alleviating poverty. Elon Musk also praised China yesterday, saying it is the future, and I didn’t think he was even a leftist. The communist Obama appointed an actual communist John Brennan as the head of the CIA. John Brennan and his buddies have done nothing but instigate wars, crush civil liberties, and lie brazenly and openly to the American people. Yesterday afternoon John Brennan was defending his pal James Comey, and openly threatening our president on Twitter, saying that his “protective cocoon is only temporary.”

              1. Just let me step up and defend Elon Musk. I would like some context to that statement that China is the future. I don’t know his leanings, but they are not thoroughly progressive based on his interview with Dave Rubin, and he supported Trump and spoke at the GOP convention. I’d say that he’s not really a leftist, but an advocate of big projects, and it was Musk is warning us that the big tech companies are thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese spies.

                1. Agreed re Elon Musk. The context is he was opening his new Tesla plant in Shanghai and he’s getting tax subsidies from China. It is a bit concerning/disappointing though that Musk, who holds a security clearance, would appear at a communist state propaganda event and make these statements.

            2. Welfare for life….or the baby gets it!

        2. He is just spewing the left wing propaganda the since conservatives don’t want mass welfare and other left wing big government solutions to child issues, they don’t care about children.

      4. libs support plenty of pollcies you can argue are detrimental to life. Coddling of criminals, encouraging drug use, growing slow inefficient bureaucracy. Not to mention they are strongly supportive of suicide and population reduction. I don’t know where this “conservatives are prolife inside the womb but not outside it so libs must be the exact opposite” meme came from.

        1. Because pro-abort spokesholes are dishonest.

    2. If you have information about murder, Bob, the sole decent course would be to alert the relevant law enforcement authority.

      If you do not have information about murder, the sole decent course would be to stop interfering with reasoned debate by spouting nonsense.

      Your replacement in our electorate will be part of America’s improvement.

      1. what is the relevant difference between killing someone and killing someone one day away from being born with a fully developed nervous system able to exist independently? Something that is now being adapted as the new mainstream position of the Democrats.

        1. Clingers’ observations about the “mainstream” are unpersuasive.

          1. Beto reiterated his support for it just a day or two ago and there are countless other examples. They’re not exactly hiding this. Why are you denying it?

            1. You don’t have to engage with him you know. Its a fool’s errand.

        2. ” Something that is now being adapted as the new mainstream position of the Democrats.”

          Oddly, I haven’t seen this new “mainstream” position advanced by any actual D’s.

          1. This wonderful system won’t let me post links but you can google Beto’s recent comments and the New York abortion laws and similar recent statements by other candidates and similar state laws seeking till birth abortion and sometimes afterward. You guys own this.

            1. “You guys own this.”

              We guys???

              1. Seems like a reasonable remark. I’m not sure how you can claim that something isn’t being advanced by any actual Ds when it’s been enacted as law by Democratic legislative majorities.

                OK, granted, the claim being obviously false doesn’t stop you from flapping your lips while blowing air past your vocal cords so as to make the relevant noises, but the question does arise why you’d expect your denial to be met with anything but derisive laughter.

                1. ” the question does arise why you’d expect your denial to be met with anything but derisive laughter.”

                  How is this responsive to the claim that all men are Democrats? (which, um, I continue to deny).

                  1. Ah, I see, irrelevant diversion.

                    1. Yes, that’s what you were just accused of. No comment, I presume?

                    2. Just like Sarcastro likes strawmen, JP takes a word, deliberately changes the meaning, then responds to that semantic twist. Usually without bothering to explain it.
                      Here, he tried to take “You guys” to mean “all males” rather than “pro-abortionists”.

                      If you were being kind to him, it’d be called a stawnman as well. However, since it seems he does it deliberately, a more accurate description would be: he’s a pathetic liar.

                    3. “Here, he tried to take ‘You guys’ to mean ‘all males’ rather than ‘pro-abortionists’. ”

                      Because, whereas I am a male, I am not “pro-abortion”. I assume this is too complicated for you, which is why you want for insults instead of actually dealing with anything I said.

                    4. My “dealing” with anything you said was pointing out how you were deliberately using a meaning that no one else was using, and you were deliberately failing to explain that you had changed the meaning.

                      If you had done it accidentally, it would have been a strawman fallacy. However, when doing it deliberately – It’s not logical fallacy to do that. It’s just lying. If feel feel insulted by being called out for your lying, then stop doing it.

                      That’s the only part of anything you said in this subthread that I addressed. The rest of what you said, I made no comment on one way or another – it is irrelevant to my point.

                    5. ” you were deliberately using a meaning that no one else was using”

                      Your thesis is that nobody but me uses “guy” to mean “male person”?

                      This is why it is so hard to take you seriously.

                      I imagine the next tool out of your rhetorical toolbox will be to accuse me of doing what you yourself are doing.

                    6. And you are doing it again. Are you even capable of not being duplicitous?

                      The original use of “you guys” meant those that hold the position you were supporting – pro-abortionists.
                      Your reframed use of “you guys” pretended, falsely, that he meant ‘all males’.
                      Now, again, you are pretending that someone has disagreed that ‘guy’ can mean a ‘male person’.

                      No one ever made the claim that ‘guy’ cannot mean ‘male person’. That’s ANOTHER strawman (actually, just a flat-out lie) you’ve just made up.

                    7. Called it!

                    8. No, you didn’t. You embarrassed yourself repeatedly, lied often, and are now trying to play 2nd grade level word games to escape.

                      No, you didn’t win any argument. You didn’t make a point. You didn’t ‘pwn’ anyone. You attempted some poor rhetorical tricks and got caught. Just quit embarrassing yourself and take another loss, JP. It’ll go well with all the rest of them you have.

                    9. You’re already doing all the things you decided to accuse me of. No need to repeat yourself.

            2. The New York law only permits abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy when a medical professional attests that either the fetus is not viable or the women’s life or health is at risk.

              Detractors of the law say the law permits unlimited abortion on demand up to just prior to birth. But that’s only the case if the medical professional lies. The alternative is to outlaw abortions even when the woman’s health is legitimately at risk.

              So, the mainstream Democratic position is to trust medical professionals to not abuse the law. Given the lack of evidence that such laws are being abused, I support that position. I am however open to alternatives that do not foreclose abortions when the woman’s health is legitimately at risk. So far, I have not seen any such alternatives.

              1. ” But that’s only the case if the medical professional lies.”

                Well, yes. What species were medical professionals, again? Human? A species known to lie on occasion, particularly if there’s no way the lie will be caught.

                “The alternative is to outlaw abortions even when the woman’s health is legitimately at risk.”

                No, the alternative is to have in place a system for verifying that the medical professionals didn’t lie. Which is exactly what New York recently got rid of.

                1. If only there were some kind of criminal penalty that could be attached to lying on government paperwork, or for lying when testifying in a court proceeding.

                  1. No “medical professional” at Planned Parenthood or other abortion mills?

                    You are kinda naive.

                    “So far, I have not seen any such alternatives.”

                    You are just not looking.

                    How about two doctors, none of which are employed by an abortion provider or preforms abortions.

                    How about a court proceeding?

                  2. Bob, you seem to be misunderstanding how quotation marks work. You see, what you put in the between them are words that *I said*, not the ones *you imagined me saying*.

                2. No, the alternative is to have in place a system for verifying that the medical professionals didn’t lie. Which is exactly what New York recently got rid of.

                  The only thing the bill got rid of was including the death of a fetus as homicide.

                  How about two doctors, none of which are employed by an abortion provider or preforms abortions. How about a court proceeding?

                  I have seen no such alternatives offered as legislation.

                  1. This is not true – read the big green section in your own link, Section 25-A.
                    It changes the restriction on abortion from requiring a threat to the mother’s life to only requiring a threat to her health – which, as defined later in 125, includes mental health.

                    That’s a LARGE change.

                    1. Of course the law was a big change. But, Brett incorrectly claimed the alternative is to have in place a system for verifying that the medical professionals didn’t lie. Which is exactly what New York recently got rid of.

              2. If you don’t trust medical professionals’ veracity regarding professional opinion, you wind up opposed to Oregon’s Death with Dignity law. Which, come to think of it, the W administration was.

              3. The primary issue with the NY RHA is that it decriminalizes harming a fetus. If you assault a pregnant woman and kill her unborn child, you’re on the hook for the assault, but cannot be charged with anything regarding the child itself.

                The rest of it is mostly mass panic based on disinformation. Allowing third trimester abortions based on fetal viability and risk of life/health to the mother are perfectly reasonable positions. We shouldn’t be forcing women to carry stillborns and we definitely shouldn’t tell them to die so that their child may be born. Perform the abortion and try again later is common sense.

                The law probably wouldn’t have been covered without lighting up the Freedom Tower. That was an unnecessary publicity stunt and inflammatory by design.

                The real abortion debate centers around the abuse of abortion as birth control. More than 2/3s of abortions nationally occur in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. We know for a fact that most of those abortions were viable fetuses that posed no risk to the mother. The issue is we permit them with no questions asked and trample over the concept of life because nobody wants to be the impractical asshole in the room and tell a poor, single woman to deal with it because her own mistakes don’t allow her to violate her unborn child’s natural rights.

                1. The real abortion debate centers around the abuse of abortion as birth control.

                  You can tell from how many people clearly prefer abortion as a method of birth control.

                  1. Nobody prefers it, but the fact is that rape/incest/other wacky situations don’t even get you up to 1% of all abortions performed. Medically non-viable and risk to life/health aren’t getting you anywhere near a majority. Like it or not, that’s how people treat abortions. They think with their dick, get knocked up when they aren’t ready or can’t afford it, and kill the kid because it’s going to be a pain in their ass. We should have free condoms on every street corner and incentivize responsible family planning. Of course we can be understanding and sympathetic when contraceptives fail, but even that only covers a small, single digit percentage of all abortions.

                    In general, we need to respect life more. We have abortions to deal with things that go wrong, but we can do more to not get into those situations in the first place. I don’t think we get there by restricting abortion, but I absolutely despise the cultural narrative and shitshows like lighting up a 9/11 memorial pink.

                    1. Like it or not, that’s how people treat abortions

                      You’ve come nowhere near proving this. The set of reasons for abortions is not spanned by what you’ve put forth.

                      They think with their dick, get knocked up when they aren’t ready or can’t afford it
                      This sentence is a mess of gender roles.

                      kill the kid because it’s going to be a pain in their ass
                      Telepathic demonization is super easy, ain’t it?

                      Your understanding of what sorts of people get abortion and why seems more pulled from thinking hard than actual interfacing with reality. Good news! There are lots of studies out there for you to check. The results may surprise you!

                      In general, we need to respect life more
                      In general, you need to beg the question less.

                2. Abortion-as-birth-control is bad, on the purely practical grounds that it’s inefficient if nothing else (no need to examine moral questions that can be different from person to person).
                  But many of the people who oppose abortion-as-birth-control ALSO oppose contraception generally. Improving the availability and reliability of contraception decreases the demand for abortion. Therefore people who are opposed to abortion should support increased funding for Planned Parenthood, and people who support defunding PP want more abortions.

                  1. “Dignity”
                    “But many of the people who oppose abortion-as-birth-control ALSO oppose contraception generally.”

                    Many is doing a lot of work. Some, or a small minority.

                    I mean its the official Catholic position but its honored mainly in the breach even by the devout.

                    “people who support defunding PP want more abortions.”

                    That is such a lie. PP is an abortion mill with a health clinic attached for show.

                    PP is giving up Title X funds because they make much more from abortions.

                    1. I’m sorry that the truth is not to your liking. I am guessing that you are an abortion-supporter, then?

                3. trample over the concept of life

                  Which, again, assumes the moral question and goes on from there, as though you’ve already won that argument.

                  Do you want to charge women who get abortions with murder?

                  her own mistakes
                  Generally, takes two. Sometimes just one, if that one is a guy and consent matters little to him.

                  1. You’re being a science denier again.

                    By basic and universally agreed on biological definitions, life begins at conception. And the species does not change during fetal development or birth, so a newly conceived fetus is still human.

                    You may argue that killing such a living human at the time they are still forming is acceptable – that is a logical position, and one you can make arguments for. But instead of trying to defend your position, you are trying to redefine centuries of biology to obfuscate what act you support.

                    1. The term “human life” has the connotation of “personhood.” But, biology has no opinion on whether a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person. You may argue that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person, but you shouldn’t use science, particularly in a veiled way, to do so.

                    2. “By basic and universally agreed on biological definitions, life begins at conception. ”

                      “universal” agreement doesn’t make things true, even if the agreement in question actually is universal, which it is not.
                      The beginning of life would be the dividing line between being not-alive and being alive, which conception is not. Conception involves the combining of the egg (which is alive at the time) and the sperm (which is also alive at the time).
                      Historically, the beginning of each human life was considered to be birth, even though lots of people were well aware that the fetus was in there, alive, before-hand.

                    3. If a baby is not a human before birth, what is it? Cow? Turtle?

                      Of course Sarcasto also thinks a man can become a woman by castration.

                    4. Pretending that this is a scientific question and not a philosophical one is so silly I don’t even think Toranth and Bob believe it.

                    5. “But, biology has no opinion on whether a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person. ”

                      Fetus is Latin for offspring. Whose offspring?

                      Sarcasto, like most anti lifers, denies that a fetus is human.

                      So, my question is, if not human, what is a fetus growing in a human womb then? Cow? Horse? Turtle? Bird?

                    6. “dividing line between being not-alive and being alive, which conception is not”

                      The problem with this logic is why conception is not considered being alive. Try as you might, any reason you provide also applies to already born people, specifically infants, young children, and certain populations of mentally impaired people.

                    7. Sarcasto, like most anti lifers, denies that a fetus is human.

                      That’s another example of the veiled use of the connotation of “human” as being a “person.”

                    8. Antilifer. Cute. I ain’t no Darkseid, just think this question isn’t one I’m comfortable answering on behalf all Americans.

                      I also think it’s lame when people try to pull ‘anti-choicers’ out. Just shows how little substance you plan to bring.

                      Your semantic game that human + life = human life is not convincing to anyone who hasn’t already bought into your philosophical thesis.

                    9. If you don’t want science brought into the discussion, stop trying to use science to justify your position. Notice the JP is STILL trying to deny the entire science of biology by redefining terms to suit his politics. He’s worse than most extreme climate deniers.

                      When pro-abortionist claim that a fetus isn’t alive, or isn’t human, they’re using the terms of science incorrectly. Or just lying – some people do that, too.

                      If you want to argue that some humans are OK to kill, that’s fine. You’re trying to pretend that science justifies you is just a lie.

                      If you want to argue “philosophical questions” don’t use science to cover yourself. The moral and ethical arguments are about whether killing unborn humans is acceptable. You can make many reasonable arguments about that. But most of you aren’t even trying to do so.

                      Josh R – “person” is an interesting word. Please define it. Merriam Webster gives a very simple first definition: “a human”. You seem to be defining a term explicitly to justify your position, rather than from any objective or rational basis.

                    10. Merriam Webster gives a very simple first definition: “a human”

                      That’s not a scientific definition. Personhood is a political and social construct with legal and moral consequences that science plays no part in.

                    11. “Person” is not a scientific term in biology as far as I know, unlike ‘life’ and ‘human’.

                      You’ve failed to define ‘person’ though, and the common usage (as seen by the most popular dictionary definitions) refers back to a scientific one your are stating you are not using.

                      Would you please define ‘person’ before you proceed to use it in any further arguments?

                    12. A term that you won’t define – indeed, claim does not have a definition – is not a useful term for discussion.

                      So why, then, have you brought it up in this discussion?

                    13. “If a baby is not a human before birth, what is it? Cow? Turtle? ”

                      It’s a fetus, minus some truly scary intervention. I mean, if you put a baby turtle in there, then yeah, it’s still a turtle in there.

                    14. I didn’t say “person” does not have a definition. I said it does not have an agreed upon definition. “Person” is not only useful in this discussion, it is critical because of the broad consensus that every person has the same right to life.

                    15. You have refused to supply a definition of person, rejected dictionary and common usages, and instead claimed that there is no agreed upon definition.

                      Then you claim that the definition is essential? Still without supplying one? Are you actually trying to participate in this discussion?

                      If you can’t define your terms, then everything you say is meaningless. What does “broad consensus that every person has the same right to life” mean when you don’t define ‘person’? Am I allowed to define it? Because if I define it, I’ll go with the dictionary and common usage – ‘a human’.

                      So, again: define person. Or stop wasting everyone’s time with literally meaningless babble.

                    16. “so a newly conceived fetus is still human.”

                      So is a cancerous tumor, so that isn’t dispositive on the issue.

                      A freshly conceived human embryo (if you’re going to call people “science deniers” for disagreeing with you, you should try to use proper science terms) is, at minimum, a potential human life. Now, what is it if, following fertilization, the embryo fails to implant in a receptive uterus and passes out into the world? It’s alive (for at least a little while) but, left to its own capabilities to grow, it soon perishes. So, the natural state of a human embryo is…dead, or dying.
                      But wait, you say! We only want to talk about the embryo that did successfully implant itself in a uterus! Don’t distract us with the ones that didn’t, even though they may be majority of cases, we’re only interested in the ones that did implant. OK… what part of libertarian ideology allows for one human being to demand resources from another? If you’re drowning, splashing around in the water, am I required to jump in and pull you out? (Hint: the answer is “no”.) So that takes care of the political angle. We could look at the religious angle, but… the 1A of the Constitution prevents the government from telling people what religious positions they must assume, so that can’t be the source for legally requiring one person to host another within her body.
                      So, you wind up with the Roe framework… the government has a say in things once the fetus can become an infant, and survive.

                    17. I’ll go with the dictionary and common usage – ‘a human’.

                      That’s fine, but it is not science. I’ll go with born alive human.

                    18. Josh R – you define ‘person’ as ‘a born alive human’?

                      That’s an interesting choice. According to you, a 7-month prematurely born child is ‘a person’, but a 10-month overdue child is not ‘a person’ despite being further developed.

                      According to you, killing the 10-month human child is fine, but killing the 7-month human child would be murder.

                      Tell me, when an IVF procedure occurs, is the result a ‘person’ or not? Is it only the act of passing through the birth canal that makes a ‘person’?

                    19. Firstly, do you now agree the definition of a person is not objectively answered by science, and thus your insistence that science defines that “human life” begins at conception is not relevant to the debate.

                      As to the relevant question of when personhood begins, using my definition (birth) it would not generally be fine to kill an overdue fetus. But, it would be acceptable if the health of the women was at stake because of the ongoing pregnancy. In contrast, there is no health-of-the-woman circumstances that would make killing a prematurely born baby acceptable.

                      Now, let’s take your definition of personhood (conception). When a woman hires a doctor to kill her baby, that’s first-degree murder. Wouldn’t it also be the case, that a woman who has an abortion should be prosecuted as a first-degree murder?

                    20. “Tell me, when an IVF procedure occurs, is the result a ‘person’ or not? Is it only the act of passing through the birth canal that makes a ‘person’?”

                      It’s not the trip through the birth canal that magically transforms the fetus into a person… that’s how miscarriages leave, too.

                      What causes the change is the ability of the fetus to survive independently of any one specific individual. Just as the transition from childhood to adulthood is the ability to survive independently of all others.

                      Historically, and currently in low-technology areas, that was easy to detect… it happens at birth. The fetus leaves the warm happy embrace of the uterus it’s been growing in, and takes breath with its own lungs, and takes food into its own mouth. Now, the infant is still utterly dependent on others to put food into its mouth, but almost anybody can be the one who does it, it doesn’t have to be anyone specific. So if Jane Momma doesn’t want the job, someone else can step in to do it. That’s different front a fetus still inside a uterus… we don’t have the ability to say “hold on, fetus, while we move you to a different uterus”.

                  2. “Pretending that this is a scientific question and not a philosophical one is so silly ”

                    Whatever lets you sleep at night, science denier.

                    1. “science denier”

                      Good one.

                4. More than 2/3s of abortions nationally occur in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. We know for a fact that most of those abortions were viable fetuses that posed no risk to the mother.

                  How do you think the law should restrict abortions?

                  1. I guess we can roll back this whole killing fully developed babies biologically indistinguishable from already born babies thing and go back to the old medical exception that worked fine until 2019.

                    I mean I can possibly understand why people get abortions in general but a large chunk of the population suddenly defending and glorifying outright murder just because the media whistled that way one day seems a bit offputting.

                    1. The issue the law was addressing was the previous legal regime forcing heroic measures to briefly maintain the lives of babies born with serious birth defects. It had been causing cruel and unneeded medical chaos.

                      The Pro Life side used this as an instrument to propagandize their cause.

              4. It DOES permit unlimited abortions, you can kill a perfectly healthy 9 month baby based on ’emotional state’ ie anything you want.

                “Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother’s life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a “health” exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of “health” that normally comes to mind.”

                “The alternative is to outlaw abortions even when the woman’s health is legitimately at risk.”

                LOL ummmm….you are aware you can add a medical exception by…ya know. adding a medical exception like in the previous law?

                “So, the mainstream Democratic position is to trust medical professionals to not abuse the law. Given the lack of evidence that such laws are being abused,”

                Dems could easily close that loophole. The fact that they choose not to do so and opened it in the first place, and their only defense is ‘don’t worry about it’ a position they never take with potential problems they’re worried about, speaks volumes.

                1. Just like hospice care permits infinite murders.

                2. you can add a medical exception by…ya know. adding a medical exception like in the previous law?

                  Citation for the medical exception in the previous law?

                3. “LOL ummmm….you are aware you can add a medical exception by…ya know. adding a medical exception like in the previous law? ”

                  Gets the Internet commentariot all riled up, though.

                  Here’s what you do:

                  1) Don’t have any abortions. Not even little ones.

                  2) Try to convince people who might be pregnant that they don’t want one, either.

                  3) Done.

                  4) OK, for extra credit, fund medical research to develop procedures that will let medical professionals transplant embryos from the people who don’t want them growing in their bodies, into YOUR body.

        3. what is the relevant difference between killing someone and killing someone one day away from being born with a fully developed nervous system able to exist independently?

          Are you referring to fetal viability (about 24 to 25 weeks)? Or perhaps, birth?

          1. Humans don’t get “fully developed” nervous systems until early adulthood, and they are dependent until at least adolescence.

            1. So its permissible to kill someone before early adulthood?

              1. Not by my rules. Maybe by yours…

  7. That a lone legislator would introduce such a bill does not surprise me. That not a single legislator has even a basic understanding of and respect for the First Amendment is appalling.

    1. The vote was 76-0, with 4 not recorded.

      I’m kind of suspicious about unanimous votes in legislatures, myself. My working guess here would be that the 4 were absent, and this was actually something like a voice vote. Or some such trickery.

  8. This website is very Awesome I like to visit this website daily……

  9. Could one comply with the law by explaining that “California’s” values are opposed to abortion as a wanton destruction of human life, and recommending that the legislature reflect “California’s” values more consistently?

    1. Sure but I assume they want to get the money, not just make a point.

  10. It would be fun to submit an application describing the exact opposite of what they want, just to see them gnash their teeth when a court told them they had to subsidize an anti-abortion film.

  11. Sounds like the legislature can’t justify handing money directly to Disney/Marvel Studios to get them to leave Georgia so they drafted stealth legislation to disguise the graft and virtue signal at the same time. It’s a win-win scenario. Except for the taxpayers. Somehow, they never seem to win.

  12. There was a proI’m not a fan of this proposal but I think the larger problem is that we have states that offering these sorts of subsidies in the first place to entice a particular business to locate there instead of trying to create a strong overall economic climate and letting the market decide which businesses locate where. I’m fine if Georgia wants to compete by having relatively low taxes and regulations and a cheaper workforce or if California wants to say they have a better workforce and public services and companies decide which they prefer. But they shouldn’t be targeting particular companies with subsidies including tax credits that aren’t available to all businesses in that area.

  13. Yep, this is exactly the sort of society we’re moving towards; outright political segregation and the splitting of our country on political lines. No business for wrongthinkers.

    1. The states are laboratories of democracy. Vote with your feet. Don’t like the way state A wants to regulate your affairs? Pack up, and move to state B, which has policies closer to your liking. It’s not a new idea… it’s just easier to actually accomplish now. For example, all those people who followed he Oregon Trail, despite how many of them were dying of dysentery along the way. Or the way the Mormons didn’t get along with their neighbors in NY, so they packed up and headed to Utah.

  14. “We want to secede because that pesky Bill of Rights is getting in the way of us using the power of government to hurt our political opponents. This differs from every demagogic dictatorship in history because we fancy democratic control will keep things in line even though all human history shows it will not. But those concerns are for our children to worry about.”

    What a plan!

    1. As usual, the Reason web site, which auto-reloaded before I submitted, retained the text field of my mostly-crafted response, but detatched it from the entry I was responding to, and put it in as a brand new response at the bottom.

      What a programming job!

      1. One of the worst commenting systems I’ve seen in the last few years and thats saying something. Most systems simply ignore lessons learned from previous systems, this one tweaks a few things to make it even more annoying. Might as well pull it up and replace it with Disqus.

        1. Please, no, Disqus sucks works than this system.

      2. Remember, a lot of these people are just ‘learning to code’. You can’t expect perfection from a rookie coder any more than you can expect truth from MSM.

  15. Well spotted.

  16. My state’s legislature appears to have gone almost totally bonkers.

  17. So, basically, if your production films in, say, Alabama, Georgia, or somewhere filming is cheaper but abortion rights are more restrictive, you don’t get Cali subsidies. Sounds like a back-door way to get more film business in Cali, disguised as virtue signaling.

    1. Nah. They’d just say “we have subsidies if you want to film here”, same as Georgia, and have approximately 0 legal expense defending it.

      1. But if you’re filming your exteriors in Georgia and your interior shots in Hollywood, you can’t get California subsidies because Georgia doesn’t share California values about reproductive rights. Come to think of it, without a pretty precise description of California’s values on reproductive rights, this could apply to just about any location outside the state.

        It’s play (only in California) for pay, with the film craft unions making sure that the campaign contributions keep rolling in.

        1. But they don’t have to do any of that “California values” stuff. They can say “make the whole thing here and we’ll give you money”.

  18. And yet it doesn’t appear too difficult to replace this credit with a program offering grants conditioned on speech, that would squeeze by based on the subsidized speech precedents of Rust v. Sullivan and National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley. The key seems to be that the program have as a central purpose the advancement of women’s reproductive rights, then the activities including speech funded by a grant under that program may be constrained to conform with the state’s objectives, as long as the grantee remains free to express nonconforming or even opposing views outside the project.
    The bill at issue here compels speech but does not prohibit subsequent opposing speech, so might pass if it were a separate initiative instead of being tacked on to a bill whose primary purpose is to support the film industry.

  19. I actually believe this is a pro-business “bailout”.

    Film productions are heavily dependent on the actors who appear in them, so if the actors refuse to work in Georgia, the studios have problems… recasting is expensive and in some cases effectively impossible. Moving a production is expensive AND time-consuming, and in some cases effectively impossible. To the extent that there is a REAL as opposed to “all talk” movement among the actors and technical crew to refuse to work in certain states, it places investments in production and marketing at risk. California is the state most affected by film productions stalling, so they’re also the state most interested in getting those productions going again. So the state is kicking in a few bucks to help productions which are actually affected by labor being unwilling to work in certain states. They want to target the bailout to only those productions actually affected by this problem.

    I know what you’re going to say… politicians being responsive to big-money special interests? What a crazy notion! But I think, in this case, it just might have happened.

  20. I’m still confused about how this is different from giving tax money to unions…

    1. “This is giving money to corporations. TOTALLY different.

  21. Are students no longer required to read George Orwell’s 1984?

    Where do we get unanimous legislators so willing to push thought control?

    1. 1984 didn’t have a lot of funding contingent on certain viewpoints, actually.

    2. “Are students no longer required to read George Orwell’s 1984?”

      Are you in favor of government officials telling citizens what literature to consume?

      1. Yeah, when the government official is a teacher. I expect the teacher to make assignments. How else could students hold a discussion on a book they all read?

        1. “Yeah, when the government official is a teacher. I expect the teacher to make assignments”

          Kind of answers

          “Where do we get unanimous legislators so willing to push thought control?”

  22. I find it amazing that Stars contracts don’t have a way to mitigate costs when the Star refuses to appear in a certain locale. That is, not agreed upon in advance of signing.

    1. If Star won’t show, what exactly would mitigate the failure of Star to show?

      “Party of the first part, Star, agrees to provide a list of three other people who sufficiently resemble Star to complete the production in case of Star’s unavailability for any reason.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.