Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[4th&Five 41525]

Arkansas, huh? Is this about the football team’s performance last week?

[TwiceHorn 31451]

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.

[Foosters 17850]

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.

[F250 28767]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Arkansas, huh? Is this about the football team’s performance last week?

Yes, you can tell he is from Arkansas by the jorts he wears.

 

[elfenix 34231]

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?

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

  Possibly another frailty in the law itself.

Ya think?

[JimmyJames 12271]

I think surly should file suit as well. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Kanye west should file suit as well against this guy. Why not? He can. Maybe OJ too.

[JimmyJames 12271]

The shitshow begins. Gonna be entertaining at least. 

[Foosters 17850]

16 minutes ago, elfenix said:

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

Well onto plan B then

[TwiceHorn 31451]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Ya think?

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?

[JimmyJames 12271]

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.

[Horn Dog 9818]

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 

[F250 28767]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

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

The abortion provider.

A girl gets an abortion then her boyfriend sues the doctor but then the ex-girlfriend of the boyfriend sues the girlfriend for $10K.

[ROFL BOX 6649]

13 hours ago, Foosters said:

Well onto plan B then

If Plan B was involved, we wouldn't see this to have developed to a "fetal heartbeat".

[ROFL BOX 6649]

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?

[Brisketexan 105096]

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.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

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! 

[elfenix 34231]

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.  

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

How are the plaintiffs supposed to get their hands on the patients' medical records in these cases?

[C-Man 27215]

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.

 

[DDD Dad 14334]

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”?

[C-Man 27215]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

The “Wire Coathanger”?

I see that two of the next several Final Fours are set to take place in Houston and San Antonio. I wonder if those events consider going elsewhere due to this new law.

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

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?

[wildcat09 29349]

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.

[JimmyJames 12271]

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. 

 

[DDD Dad 14334]

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.

[Js1 85311]

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.

 

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

So, this was all just theater?

Typical of the pro life crowd.  Lots of talk but don't count on them to actually do anything.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

So, this was all just theater?

[Sawbonz 27547]

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?

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

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.

[JimmyJames 12271]

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. 

[Js1 85311]

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. 

[TwiceHorn 31451]

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 September 23, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31451]

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.

[JimmyJames 12271]

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. 

[ROFL BOX 6649]

[safe sex 11709]

Just as God intended

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

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.

[TwiceHorn 31451]

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.

[NWBuck 8552]

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?

[Goofyboy 3280]

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.

[workswithseed 2103]

43 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

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

They shooting people?

[NWBuck 8552]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

They shooting people?

To the same level that medical abortion drug providers are killing people, I guess...

[Js1 85311]

56 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

How does that work? Texas law doesn’t apply to out of state companies or people.

Lol the law 

[Zepol87 9185]

18 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

They shooting people?

This again

[workswithseed 2103]

25 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

This again

Knife makers should be sued.

[NWBuck 8552]

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Knife makers should be sued.

So you agree with us that Gov. Abbott's focus here is really stupid. Thanks.

[workswithseed 2103]

16 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

So you agree with us that Gov. Abbott's focus here is really stupid. Thanks.

Yeah... I never said it wasn't.