Ken Paxton is dirty? NO FUCKING WAY!

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

22 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The AG is saying that the procedure is legal, but the hospital is not following their own procedures.

...which obviously is a job for the state's Attorney General and not the hospital's administration, being by your description of the AG's opinion "legal".

 

[TwiceHorn 32083]

37 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The AG is saying that the procedure is legal, but the hospital is not following their own procedures. All they have to do is follow their existing procedures.

The mediaite story claimed the patient was told that she was at risk for uterine rupture which would damage her fertility, so there appears to be no issue with meeting the requirements to make it legal.

Is that correct?

No they're not.  They're saying it's only permissible if the mother's life is in danger.

[Biff Tannen 46169]

On 12/8/2023 at 7:41 PM, tx 3 putt said:

State Supreme Court is full of hacks 

This is by design. Federalist Society and Leonard Leo out front should have told you. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No they're not.  They're saying it's only permissible if the mother's life is in danger.

The letter says you are allowed to do a D&C if the pregnancy "that places the female at risk of death OR POSES A SERIOUS RISK OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPARATIMENT OF A MAJOR BODILY FUNCTION UNLESS THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED". All the AG did was restate the law.

I am not sure what isn't clear about that. She is at risk for uterine rupture. It's entirely clear, medically and morally. That was stated in the Mediaite article. Why is there even a lawsuit? The AG is not contesting the factual finding, just restating the law. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

11 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Where are you seeing that? It am reading their words, that is not what they are saying. 

 

What does "serious risk to a bodily function" mean if not fertility? That is certainly not risk of death.

What would that distinction, hypothetically, mean as far as whether this procedure would be legal or not? 

I mean, not that it matters, being your position is that the AG's opinion is that it's "legal". 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

8 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I mean, not that it matters, being your position is that the AG's opinion is that it's "legal". 

It's not my position that the AG said it is legal. The AG stated that the determination of whether it is legal occurs at the level of the medical provider. That is how the law operates.

It is, however, my position you should read what the AG actually said. It appears you have not done that.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

The AG is saying that the procedure is legal,

 

11 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's not my position that the AG said it is legal.

 

11 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The AG stated that the determination of whether it is legal occurs at the level of the medical provider.

Trifecta!

[tx 3 putt 78704]

25 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

What would that distinction, hypothetically, mean as far as whether this procedure would be legal or not? 

I mean, not that it matters, being your position is that the AG's opinion is that it's "legal". 

 

Lord Paxton must give a thumbs down or up !

[Thetexashammer 1062]

11 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

 

Trifecta!

The AG is not making a factual finding that the procedure is legal. They are stating that the job of making a factual finding is the physician's.  They are restating the law.

They cannot state "it is legal". That is a factual determination made by the physician. I do apologize for my lack of clarity.

To restate my position, there is no reason not to proceed with the procedure, outside of the hospital or the physician refusing to do so. It appears the law is fine, but there is something going on at the hospital.

If you want to change the law, this is not the droid you are looking for.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

I'm not the one you need to be apologizing to.

[scottsins 2047]

The AG is not making a factual finding that the procedure is legal. They are stating that the job of making a factual finding is the physician's.  They are restating the law.
They cannot state "it is legal". That is a factual determination made by the physician. I do apologize for my lack of clarity.
To restate my position, there is no reason not to proceed with the procedure, outside of the hospital or the physician refusing to do so. It appears the law is fine, but there is something going on at the hospital.
If you want to change the law, this is not the droid you are looking for.

One reason for not proceeding would be the State of Texas threatening them with prosecution/lawsuits.

[tx 3 putt 78704]

Someone will soon be arrested for murder ?

 

[C-Man 27783]

8 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Someone will soon be arrested for murder ?

 

What a colossal piece of shit. Goddamn those pussy-ass Texas senators for not firing him into the sun during the impeachment trial.

I look forward to the day the cartel(s) catch up to him. It better happen @YGIFS. You promised.

[Pig Bellmont 8887]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures. 

And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. 

Humanly indefensible. 

This is what republicans voted for with Paxton and Abbott 

[chainsaw 10297]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

It appears the law is fine

Under his eye

[royiv 9795]

You have to be a special piece of shit to not have empathy for what this woman and her family are going through right now. This is not the Texas I was raised in where we looked out for our neighbors.

[atomheartbevo 90653]

23 minutes ago, royiv said:

You have to be a special piece of shit to not have empathy for what this woman and her family are going through right now. This is not the Texas I was raised in where we looked out for our neighbors.

it's really gone backward over the last 7-10 years, whether it's this, or Abbott wasting the time of Texas National Guard soldiers at the border, or wasting taxpayer money on his barricade, or having a power grid that seems to be regressing, or encouraging Chinese bitcoiners to come in and take up residence, to trying to ban more books, ban people from teaching about certain aspects of Texas history, etc.

I'm still amazed that the Republicans haven't banned all human sexuality classes in Texas schools.

Edited December 11, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 90653]

Are we taking bets on whether Abbott goes after her when she comes back?

[Pato del Muerto 53517]

Hammer says tx says she’s within her rights so obviously they are now just happy that she is getting the care she requires. Now the evil hospital admin is out of the way. 

[miguelito 11505]

The radio said that Paxton was fighting the release of the Uvalde DPS report.

Of course.

[tx 3 putt 78704]

19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

it's really gone backward over the last 7-10 years, whether it's this, or Abbott wasting the time of Texas National Guard soldiers at the border, or wasting taxpayer money on his barricade, or having a power grid that seems to be regressing, or encouraging Chinese bitcoiners to come in and take up residence, to trying to ban more books, ban people from teaching about certain aspects of Texas history, etc.

I'm still amazed that the Republicans haven't banned all human sexuality classes in Texas schools.

abbott wants a spot in trump’s cabinet, expect a full blown shit show

[Pato del Muerto 53517]

9 minutes ago, miguelito said:

The radio said that Paxton was fighting the release of the Uvalde DPS report.

Of course.

He must not have faith in a trump win or cabinet posting if he’s making sure to keep the LEO groups on his side for a reelection. 

[SimonBolivar 11064]

16 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

The letter says you are allowed to do a D&C if the pregnancy "that places the female at risk of death OR POSES A SERIOUS RISK OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPARATIMENT OF A MAJOR BODILY FUNCTION UNLESS THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED". All the AG did was restate the law.

I am not sure what isn't clear about that. She is at risk for uterine rupture. It's entirely clear, medically and morally. That was stated in the Mediaite article. Why is there even a lawsuit? The AG is not contesting the factual finding, just restating the law. 

 

 

Jesus Christ dude, your tab and file management has me questioning your sanity. Is that 26,900+ unread emails?

Edited December 11, 2023 by SimonBolivar

[Chewbacca 7830]

35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

it's really gone backward over the last 7-10 years, whether it's this, or Abbott wasting the time of Texas National Guard soldiers at the border, or wasting taxpayer money on his barricade, or having a power grid that seems to be regressing, or encouraging Chinese bitcoiners to come in and take up residence, to trying to ban more books, ban people from teaching about certain aspects of Texas history, etc.

I'm still amazed that the Republicans haven't banned all human sexuality classes in Texas schools.

Don't leave out all the money Republicans have spent sending immigrants to blue states.  Denver just got a busload last week, so it's still happening.

34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Are we taking bets on whether Abbott goes after her when she comes back?

What would he go after her for?  

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2115]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Under his eye

The good one or the regarded one

[C-Man 27783]

27 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Jesus Christ dude, your tab and file management has me questioning your sanity. Is that 26,900+ unread emails?

He also has a folder for his "BMs."

[atomheartbevo 90653]

41 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Jesus Christ dude, your tab and file management has me questioning your sanity. Is that 26,900+ unread emails?

[DDD Dad 14654]

18 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

The AG is saying that the procedure is legal,

No he isn't.

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Hey, at least there isn't one for pegging.

[DDD Dad 14654]

44 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Jesus Christ dude, your tab and file management has me questioning your sanity. Is that 26,900+ unread emails?

THAT's what has you questioning his sanity?

[atomheartbevo 90653]

41 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What would he go after her for?  

He or Paxton.  It's where quite a few MAGA types in Texas want things to go, including at least four counties (trying to block people going to get an abortion from driving on their roads) as well as at least 20 members of the Texas legislature - they want to try and shut down the highways for those leaving Texas for an abortion, even if it comes down to civilians filing lawsuits and not the state directly going after people leaving to get an abortion.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/01/texas-cities-abortion-trafficking/

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/23/abortion-travel-ban-lubbock-county/

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13735]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He or Paxton.  It's where quite a few MAGA types in Texas want things to go, including at least four counties (trying to block people going to get an abortion from driving on their roads) as well as at least 20 members of the Texas legislature - they want to try and shut down the highways for those leaving Texas for an abortion, even if it comes down to civilians filing lawsuits and not the state directly going after people leaving to get an abortion.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/01/texas-cities-abortion-trafficking/

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/23/abortion-travel-ban-lubbock-county/

 

I don't think they will. Some local areas have expressed that they might go after people transporting or helping those flee the state for an abortion but I can't recall hearing Abbott or Paxton saying that. Yet. 

They will be happy declaring this as a victory. The Texas Supreme Court will announce that with this woman's out of state abortion, her case is now unnecessary to render a decision.

[DDD Dad 14654]

36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't think they will. Some local areas have expressed that they might go after people transporting or helping those flee the state for an abortion but I can't recall hearing Abbott or Paxton saying that. Yet. 

They will be happy declaring this as a victory. The Texas Supreme Court will announce that with this woman's out of state abortion, her case is now unnecessary to render a decision.

Seems like this is a classic example of "capable of repetition yet evading review."  In federal court I don't imagine it would be treated as moot.  Who knows in the court of 9 republicans?

[Ghost of LL 15698]

20 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Seems like this is a classic example of "capable of repetition yet evading review."  In federal court I don't imagine it would be treated as moot.  Who knows in the court of 9 republicans?

100% they dismiss the appeal as moot.  I would very much expect to see that order come out Friday at 9:00.

[Ghost of LL 15698]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

100% they dismiss the appeal as moot.  I would very much expect to see that order come out Friday at 9:00.

And of course no sooner than I issue my learned prognostication than SCOTX hands down its decision, showing my prediction to be 100% wrong.  So let this be another small rock upon the mountain of evidence demonstrating why nobody should ever listen to my pontifications.

[Dbeasy 15598]

Just stopped by to say fuck Ken Paxton, this state’s top law enforcement representative who happens to be a piece of shit, a crook, and a fuck head. 

[sheeeit 129]

19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures. 

And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. 

Humanly indefensible. 

To be clear, I disagree completely with the Texas abortion law and think it perfectly illustrtaes the backwords thinking and political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy of the Texas GOP.  It is ghoulish.  The law is too vague and needs serious reform.  It is likely written to put fear into doctors and hospitals.  It is terrible.   I would never support any of the people responsible for it.

But there are definitely people on here that look to the few level headed attorneys on the board for information and I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the Texas law.  To your points:

1)"Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures."- I think it actually does.  The law requires the doctor performing the procedure to have "active admitting privileges" at the time of the procedure and the hospital only grants privileges to doctors that agree to comply with all hospital policies.  The truth is that if the hospital knowingly allows a doctor to perform surgeries/procedures that do not comply with their (the hospital's) own guidelines then the hospital is certainly at risk for penalties.  This is true whether the procedure is an abortion or any other medical procedure.

2) "They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. "- Disagree again.  The Texas statute (as ghoulish as it is) clearly states that  an exception to the guidelines exists for any unborn child that " has a severe fetal abnormality".  No woman would ever be forced to to give birth to a stillborn child under the statute. 

 

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No they're not.  They're saying it's only permissible if the mother's life is in danger.

Again, they are not saying this at all.  You, as a lawyer, know this.  That was simply an answer to the specific filings in this case.  There are many cisrcumstances that allow a legal abortion that do not require the mother's life to be in danger. 

As mentioned, the law is certainly vague and I can understand the hesitancy of the doctors. 

As stated, I think the statute is absolutely repulsive.  But it was passed into law.  And in making a PURELY legal and unemotional judgement on the actions of the AG (again I disagree to the law completely) in this case I would agree that the AG is correct in its arguments.  There are laws and procedures required for legal abortions.  Ms Cox and her doctor did not follow them and they certainly could have.  The doctor could easily have noted the conditions present in Ms Cox's pregnancy that were a danger to "impairment of a major bodily function" and had another doctor concur and performed the abortion.  I get it that they don't want to do that because it might show that the statute allows it and then they have a far more limited avenue to sue.  They want to use the emotional scenarios to help draw attention to the law and the need for reform and I hope they succeed.   What I do not like is the suffering that some of these women incur when they shouldn't have to legally or otherwise. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

54 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And of course no sooner than I issue my learned prognostication than SCOTX hands down its decision, showing my prediction to be 100% wrong.  So let this be another small rock upon the mountain of evidence demonstrating why nobody should ever listen to my pontifications.

The AG was reading from the law and applying the facts. The Supreme court did likewise. The treating physician did not certify the medical requirement for the D&C, but that is a requirement, the hospital has a procedure to follow. It was not followed, then somehow an activist lawyer got involved.

I assume you read the court's opinion, they seem to indicate, as the AG stated and I said early on, that this never needed to be in a court.

I personally think the law is too restrictive.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[wildcat09 29588]

Texashammer is apparently a Texas Supreme Court justice.

[safe sex 12017]

The fucking distinctions don't matter. What the medical record states doesn't fucking matter. When has the Attorney General of Texas shown you that he will follow the law, even as vaguely as it's written? Was it when he filed lawsuits in an attempt to fraudulently overturn the 2020 election? Was it sometime during the last eight years he has been under felony indictment?

As long as the threat of prosecution exists, especially at the level it exists, that's all that matters. The doctor could write "fetus already dead" and until the mother is so sick that even a layperson on a jury knows she is near death, the hospital/doctors won't feel safe enough to operate.

The cruelty is the point. FUCK

[TwiceHorn 32083]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

To be clear, I disagree completely with the Texas abortion law and think it perfectly illustrtaes the backwords thinking and political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy of the Texas GOP.  It is ghoulish.  The law is too vague and needs serious reform.  It is likely written to put fear into doctors and hospitals.  It is terrible.   I would never support any of the people responsible for it.

But there are definitely people on here that look to the few level headed attorneys on the board for information and I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the Texas law.  To your points:

1)"Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures."- I think it actually does.  The law requires the doctor performing the procedure to have "active admitting privileges" at the time of the procedure and the hospital only grants privileges to doctors that agree to comply with all hospital policies.  The truth is that if the hospital knowingly allows a doctor to perform surgeries/procedures that do not comply with their (the hospital's) own guidelines then the hospital is certainly at risk for penalties.  This is true whether the procedure is an abortion or any other medical procedure.

2) "They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. "- Disagree again.  The Texas statute (as ghoulish as it is) clearly states that  an exception to the guidelines exists for any unborn child that " has a severe fetal abnormality".  No woman would ever be forced to to give birth to a stillborn child under the statute. 

 

Again, they are not saying this at all.  You, as a lawyer, know this.  That was simply an answer to the specific filings in this case.  There are many cisrcumstances that allow a legal abortion that do not require the mother's life to be in danger. 

As mentioned, the law is certainly vague and I can understand the hesitancy of the doctors. 

As stated, I think the statute is absolutely repulsive.  But it was passed into law.  And in making a PURELY legal and unemotional judgement on the actions of the AG (again I disagree to the law completely) in this case I would agree that the AG is correct in its arguments.  There are laws and procedures required for legal abortions.  Ms Cox and her doctor did not follow them and they certainly could have.  The doctor could easily have noted the conditions present in Ms Cox's pregnancy that were a danger to "impairment of a major bodily function" and had another doctor concur and performed the abortion.  I get it that they don't want to do that because it might show that the statute allows it and then they have a far more limited avenue to sue.  They want to use the emotional scenarios to help draw attention to the law and the need for reform and I hope they succeed.   What I do not like is the suffering that some of these women incur when they shouldn't have to legally or otherwise. 

I was responding to TexasHammer's mischaracterization of the law and facts based on Paxton's "advocacy."

It does not actually appear that a serious effort was made here to comply with the statute.  I have not read the pleadings, but this seems to be an appeal to the equities of a factual abomination more than a serious effort to invoke the medical exception.

There may have been some "publicity stunt" aspects to it.

ETA:  and that's ok by me.  Without bringing these court cases involving real situations, this runs the risk of being a bunch of gnarly anecdotes that are easily dismissed by those so inclined.

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[atomheartbevo 90653]

44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Texashammer is apparently a Texas Supreme Court justice.

Has he been arrested 37 times at anti-abortion demonstrations?  Then no, he's not.

[safe sex 12017]

Talk about an activist judge.

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was responding to TexasHammer's mischaracterization of the law and facts based on Paxton's "advocacy."

It does not actually appear that a serious effort was made here to comply with the statute.  I have not read the pleadings, but this seems to be an appeal to the equities of a factual abomination more than a serious effort to invoke the medical exception.

There may have been some "publicity stunt" aspects to it.

ETA:  and that's ok by me.  Without bringing these court cases involving real situations, this runs the risk of being a bunch of gnarly anecdotes that are easily dismissed by those so inclined.

 

Agreed to a point.  I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies.  I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced.  But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute.   In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed.  Perhaps they never will.  But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.

 

[safe sex 12017]

Oh get the fuck out of here. How many recent SCOTUS decisions hinged on things that didn't even happen?

[Captainant 28561]

Nothing better than the resident fascist apologists coming in to tell us all it's the hospitals fault that a woman can't get care, and not the fucking christofascists passing laws to have this exact effect. For fucks sake, y'all's logic applied in the 1850s would have been cheering on slave catching cops because "hurrrrr durrrrr das wha duh law says". Y'all are just completely disengaging your critical thought and intrinsically dismissing the mere notion of women having a right to any sort of medical or bodily autonomy. 

[SimonBolivar 11064]

35 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Agreed to a point.  I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies.  I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced.  But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute.   In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed.  Perhaps they never will.  But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.

 

No way man, this case has some serious legs in the country right now. It's getting a ton of play/conversation.

[atomheartbevo 90653]

31 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

No way man, this case has some serious legs in the country right now. It's getting a ton of play/conversation.

It is getting a lot of play in the national conversation, and 2024 is an election year, so FAFO.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

No way man, this case has some serious legs in the country right now. It's getting a ton of play/conversation.

 

41 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It is getting a lot of play in the national conversation, and 2024 is an election year, so FAFO.

Hopefully you guys are right.  But it seems to me that the only way to repeal the law is through the legislature.  That is going to require a pretty serious conversion.  I think the national dialogue will produce 2 things.  Texas is going to look stupid and the ones responsible for being stupid are just going to hunker down and tell the world they don't understand the law.  Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.

[atomheartbevo 90653]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Hopefully you guys are right.  But it seems to me that the only way to repeal the law is through the legislature.  That is going to require a pretty serious conversion.  I think the national dialogue will produce 2 things.  Texas is going to look stupid and the ones responsible for being stupid are just going to hunker down and tell the world they don't understand the law.  Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.

We are well into the enforcement part of the law.  We have four counties (good ole Lubbock leading the way) who have laws on the books that encourage private citizens to file lawsuits against anybody using various roads within the counties to transport/assist somebody having an abortion - and the folks behind it are the folks driving the unborn sanctuary city bullshit, tc.

Notably, they can't sue the woman seeking the abortion, so there has to be some self-awareness there, that it's a bad look if they sue a woman whose pregnancy is not viable.

We have Paxton making damned sure that, whether the abortion is technically legal or not, he wants all hospitals on notice that he will go after them with the power and resources of the State of Texas if he so desires.  Paxton and his supporters can claim the abortion was legal and it was simply a matter of her doctor fucking up, but he sure as hell was not acting like it.

This is the canary in the coal mine.  

[Brisketexan 106919]

We are well into the enforcement part of the law.  We have four counties (good ole Lubbock leading the way) who have laws on the books that encourage private citizens to file lawsuits against anybody using various roads within the counties to transport/assist somebody having an abortion - and the folks behind it are the folks driving the unborn sanctuary city bullshit, tc.
Notably, they can't sue the woman seeking the abortion, so there has to be some self-awareness there, that it's a bad look if they sue a woman whose pregnancy is not viable.
We have Paxton making damned sure that, whether the abortion is technically legal or not, he wants all hospitals on notice that he will go after them with the power and resources of the State of Texas if he so desires.  Paxton and his supporters can claim the abortion was legal and it was simply a matter of her doctor fucking up, but he sure as hell was not acting like it.
This is the canary in the coal mine.  

There is no canary, man. All of em are dead. The toxic gases are well beyond the point of no return.