Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery


bad_teammate

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

And we've got our first bounty lawsuit.

For the fun part: 

 

He's been sued by another out-of-state plaintiff opposed to the law, also.  Which brings up an interesting point:  how many times can an "abortion abetter" be sued for the same abortion. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/texas-abortion-doctor-lawsuit/index.html

Steve Vladeck opines that both plaintiffs will lose:

Quote
"The question isn't whether Dr. Braid is going to win this lawsuit; he almost certainly will," noted Steve Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
"It's how future SB8 lawsuits can be blocked," Vladeck said. "And nothing that happens in this case can prevent future lawsuits from being brought -- that's the whole point of transferring enforcement authority from a single state to a limitless class of potential private plaintiffs."
These two lawsuits may face procedural hurdles because they have been filed by individuals who do not support the law. "The judge will have to sort that out," Vladeck said.

I'm not sure I agree that the motivation of the plaintiffs has shit to do with fuck.  The statute makes no such distinction, it's on the books and the plaintiffs invoked it and can prove their cases.  Possibly another frailty in the law itself.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Foosters said:

I like the idea of having an ally file the suit. You coordinate things such that suit is filed one day after the procedure. Plaintiff collects 10k, splits it with the defendant 50/50.

um, what do you think is the source of the $10k?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's not one that's really been talked about.

But, if the parties actually have no controversy, except that defined by the statute, is the case justiciable at all?

The statute introduces so many ridiculous questions that you could write a whole law school class exam over it. Doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Foosters said:

I like the idea of having an ally file the suit. You coordinate things such that suit is filed one day after the procedure. Plaintiff collects 10k, splits it with the defendant 50/50.

How about suing yourself same day you are getting an abortion, or doctor sues the patient and the patient sues the doctor?   If it is later determined that you can only be sued once per incident then you now have immunity 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

creepers staking out the Planned Parenthood from their court-mandated 500 foot distance

Tell me this... if I was to deliver a pizza to Planned parenthood... a medical supply co. brings in a box of [ _________ ], one of these jackholes spots the vehicle & writes down the license plate, then reverse searches it & sues on the basis of providing some kind of material support...

Would that ALSO have some sort of standing under this stupid law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

He's been sued by another out-of-state plaintiff opposed to the law, also.  Which brings up an interesting point:  how many times can an "abortion abetter" be sued for the same abortion. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/texas-abortion-doctor-lawsuit/index.html

Steve Vladeck opines that both plaintiffs will lose:

I'm not sure I agree that the motivation of the plaintiffs has shit to do with fuck.  The statute makes no such distinction, it's on the books and the plaintiffs invoked it and can prove their cases.  Possibly another frailty in the law itself.

Yep, motivation doesn't matter -- so long as you have an actual case or controversy, you have standing.  There are "friendly" declaratory judgment actions filed on occasion, and so long as there's an actual dispute (even if just on paper), that generally passes muster.

Of course, the AG and other interested parties will try to intervene in this suit.  The AG will probably be allowed to do so in order to defend the constitutionality of the statute.  As to other intervenors....that's an interesting question.  I mean, there are literally 300 million potential plaintiffs (every adult in the US has standing to bring this claim).  How does the court decide how many to allow in?  And if they prevail, how is the bounty divided?  

We are the stupidest fucking state.  I think it's time to admit the truth -- we're worse than Bama and Mississippi.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep, motivation doesn't matter -- so long as you have an actual case or controversy, you have standing.  There are "friendly" declaratory judgment actions filed on occasion, and so long as there's an actual dispute (even if just on paper), that generally passes muster.

Of course, the AG and other interested parties will try to intervene in this suit.  The AG will probably be allowed to do so in order to defend the constitutionality of the statute.  As to other intervenors....that's an interesting question.  I mean, there are literally 300 million potential plaintiffs (every adult in the US has standing to bring this claim).  How does the court decide how many to allow in?  And if they prevail, how is the bounty divided?  

We are the stupidest fucking state.  I think it's time to admit the truth -- we're worse than Bama and Mississippi.  

It is without a doubt the dumbest law ever passed. But that’s my GQP! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There are "friendly" declaratory judgment actions filed on occasion, and so long as there's an actual dispute (even if just on paper), that generally passes muster.

i had to do this to clear up a chain of title issue where the seller was the 7th successor entity to the last recorded grantee.  seller paid our fees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SIAP. David Chase will not shoot new non-fiction miniseries in Texas due to the new 'bortion bill, even though said events take place in Texas.

"What else looks like Dallas-Fort Worth?" Chase asked.

https://www.nme.com/news/tv/the-wire-creator-wont-shoot-new-series-in-texas-due-to-abortion-law-3050318?fbclid=IwAR0EdvqUdSgzZtXm3s5KyGA1w0WUzjzGJau4H-vQstEWcmmOYlYxN2eia5E

Quote

The Wire creator David Simon has said he won’t shoot his new HBO series in Texas due to the recent abortion laws.

The new legislation, Senate Bill 8, prohibits the abortion of a foetus once cardiac activity can be detected, which is generally around six weeks, before most women even know they are pregnant.

It makes no exception for victims of rape or incest, and authorises citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone involved in facilitating an abortion.

The US Supreme Court refused to block the bill before its enactment last Wednesday (September 1), which, according to the New York Times, now makes Texas the most restrictive US state in terms of access to abortion services.

Sharing an article describing the situation in Texas, Simon wrote: “If an employer, this is beyond politics.

“I’m turning in scripts next month on an HBO non-fiction miniseries based on events in Texas, but I can’t and won’t ask female cast/crew to forgo civil liberties to film there. What else looks like Dallas/Ft. Worth?”

Billie Eilish had recently responded to the news, too, writing on her Instagram stories “I’m so fucking tired,” and adding: “Makes me sick how many men say nothing when it comes to women’s rights.”

Yungblud also took to social media to say “The right to your body is yours and yours alone.

“It makes me sick and it makes me really disgusted that people sit there and they take away that choice and they take away that right.”

It remains unclear whether Simon’s new show will be related to The Wire – stay tuned for updates as they come in.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SIAP. David Chase will not shoot new non-fiction miniseries in Texas due to the new 'bortion bill, even though said events take place in Texas.
"What else looks like Dallas-Fort Worth?" Chase asked.
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/the-wire-creator-wont-shoot-new-series-in-texas-due-to-abortion-law-3050318?fbclid=IwAR0EdvqUdSgzZtXm3s5KyGA1w0WUzjzGJau4H-vQstEWcmmOYlYxN2eia5E
The Wire creator David Simon has said he won’t shoot his new HBO series in Texas due to the recent abortion laws.
The new legislation, Senate Bill 8, prohibits the abortion of a foetus once cardiac activity can be detected, which is generally around six weeks, before most women even know they are pregnant.
It makes no exception for victims of rape or incest, and authorises citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone involved in facilitating an abortion.
The US Supreme Court refused to block the bill before its enactment last Wednesday (September 1), which, according to the New York Times, now makes Texas the most restrictive US state in terms of access to abortion services.
Sharing an article describing the situation in Texas, Simon wrote: “If an employer, this is beyond politics.
“I’m turning in scripts next month on an HBO non-fiction miniseries based on events in Texas, but I can’t and won’t ask female cast/crew to forgo civil liberties to film there. What else looks like Dallas/Ft. Worth?”
Billie Eilish had recently responded to the news, too, writing on her Instagram stories “I’m so fucking tired,” and adding: “Makes me sick how many men say nothing when it comes to women’s rights.”
Yungblud also took to social media to say “The right to your body is yours and yours alone.
“It makes me sick and it makes me really disgusted that people sit there and they take away that choice and they take away that right.”
It remains unclear whether Simon’s new show will be related to The Wire – stay tuned for updates as they come in.
 

The “Wire Coathanger”?
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Question for the Surly Bar Association.  Why aren't the Pro Life groups suing the doctor at this point?  Wasn't that the whole point of this?

At least one of them has been enjoined from doing so under a state lawsuit. I think though am not sure that it was a different group than the big one that was sued under the original suit that SCOTUS mangled, and that group represented to the court that it wouldn't sue under the law so it could argue it wasn't a proper defendant. I'm sure there's others, but given that we've got a test case now they might be waiting to see how it shakes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Question for the Surly Bar Association.  Why aren't the Pro Life groups suing the doctor at this point?  Wasn't that the whole point of this?

Because the whole point of the law is just to intimidate people into not performing them. If they sue then there’s a case that the 5 dipshits on the Supreme Court can’t so easily dodge hiding behind procedural technicalities. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Question for the Surly Bar Association.  Why aren't the Pro Life groups suing the doctor at this point?  Wasn't that the whole point of this?

 

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

At least one of them has been enjoined from doing so under a state lawsuit. I think though am not sure that it was a different group than the big one that was sued under the original suit that SCOTUS mangled, and that group represented to the court that it wouldn't sue under the law so it could argue it wasn't a proper defendant. I'm sure there's others, but given that we've got a test case now they might be waiting to see how it shakes out.

 

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Because the whole point of the law is just to intimidate people into not performing them. If they sue then there’s a case that the 5 dipshits on the Supreme Court can’t so easily dodge hiding behind procedural technicalities. 

 

Heard a report this morning on NPR that apparently the anti-abortion groups think the law was never intended to have suits actually filed; it was just there strictly to intimidate with the threat of liability.

giphy.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

Heard a report this morning on NPR that apparently the anti-abortion groups think the law was never intended to have suits actually filed; it was just there strictly to intimidate with the threat of liability.

giphy.gif

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see how the “whistleblower “ could ever prove a case. They would need to access protected health information, which neither the facility nor the provider can do without release from the patient. Surely a state civil statute cannot supersede federal HIPAA law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t see how the “whistleblower “ could ever prove a case. They would need to access protected health information, which neither the facility nor the provider can do without release from the patient. Surely a state civil statute cannot supersede federal HIPAA law?

They know that.  It's why they prevented the defendant from asking for legal fees.  I thought the point was to sue these people into submission but I guess not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t see how the “whistleblower “ could ever prove a case. They would need to access protected health information, which neither the facility nor the provider can do without release from the patient. Surely a state civil statute cannot supersede federal HIPAA law?

I’m a normal lawsuit you could subpoena medical records from third parties and request them from the defendant and potentially get a court order enforcing the subpoena or compelling their production. In theory that route could apply to this crap as well but judges will likely be much more wary of issuing such an order given how much of a bullshit statute this is. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t see how the “whistleblower “ could ever prove a case. They would need to access protected health information, which neither the facility nor the provider can do without release from the patient. Surely a state civil statute cannot supersede federal HIPAA law?

Please don't violate my HIPPO rights and violate your Hipaacratic oath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 3:32 PM, Aqua Buddha said:

Question for the Surly Bar Association.  Why aren't the Pro Life groups suing the doctor at this point?  Wasn't that the whole point of this?

One of the main things is the "in terrorem" effect of the law has shut down most clinics.

Mission basically accomplished.

I think a lot of the groups know that this is bad, bad juju and don't want to overplay their hand.

ETA: I see that my speculation here is confirmed above.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m a normal lawsuit you could subpoena medical records from third parties and request them from the defendant and potentially get a court order enforcing the subpoena or compelling their production. In theory that route could apply to this crap as well but judges will likely be much more wary of issuing such an order given how much of a bullshit statute this is. 

The weird thing is, usually it's the plaintiff's medical records at issue (personal injury lawsuit), or perhaps the defendant injects their medical condition as part of a defense.

In either case, no court is going to have much trouble "issuing" or "enforcing" a subpoena for medical records in a those cases.

In these things, the defendant has not placed their medical condition at issue voluntarily and such a subpoena, while it could be effective against HIPAA or other privacy concerns, wouldn't be so easily enforced depending on the judge.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The weird thing is, usually it's the plaintiff's medical records at issue (personal injury lawsuit), or perhaps the defendant injects their medical condition as part of a defense.

In either case, no court is going to have much trouble "issuing" or "enforcing" a subpoena for medical records in a those cases.

In these things, the defendant has not placed their medical condition at issue voluntarily and such a subpoena, while it could be effective against HIPAA or other privacy concerns, wouldn't be so easily enforced depending on the judge.

Yeah the whole thing is back asswards which means trial court judges are gonna be flying solo without precedent which I believe most trial courts, no matter what political background, are just gonna say fuck it and deny the records and let the appellate courts sort it out for them. In fact. I can almost guarantee that will happen. Trial judges almost universally can’t stand bullshit like this and this law injects it 110 percent. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Abbott signed Senate Bill 4 which targets medical abortion drug providers, fining them up to $10,000 and can impose a sentence of up to two years in prison. After 7 weeks of pregnancy, bill outlaws use of medical abortion-inducing pills. (Previously it was up to 10 weeks pregnant.) Law goes into effect on December 2 and any medications delivered via mail, courier, etc also banned.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 7:05 PM, JimmyJames said:

Yeah the whole thing is back asswards which means trial court judges are gonna be flying solo without precedent which I believe most trial courts, no matter what political background, are just gonna say fuck it and deny the records and let the appellate courts sort it out for them. In fact. I can almost guarantee that will happen. Trial judges almost universally can’t stand bullshit like this and this law injects it 110 percent. 

District judges of all stripes should be pissed at the potential docket congestion this could cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Meanwhile, Abbott signed Senate Bill 4 which targets medical abortion drug providers, fining them up to $10,000 and can impose a sentence of up to two years in prison. After 7 weeks of pregnancy, bill outlaws use of medical abortion-inducing pills. (Previously it was up to 10 weeks pregnant.) Law goes into effect on December 2 and any medications delivered via mail, courier, etc also banned.

But we can't hold gun or ammo manufacturers responsible for mass shootings?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Abbott signed Senate Bill 4 which targets medical abortion drug providers, fining them up to $10,000 and can impose a sentence of up to two years in prison. After 7 weeks of pregnancy, bill outlaws use of medical abortion-inducing pills. (Previously it was up to 10 weeks pregnant.) Law goes into effect on December 2 and any medications delivered via mail, courier, etc also banned.

How does that work? Texas law doesn’t apply to out of state companies or people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...