Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Anastasis 23723]

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

come the fuck on...you really think that if vermont imposed a law saying that citizens could sue other citizens for $10,000 for owning a firearm in their household or that they could sue them for going to the local baptist church every sunday even though the "state government" wouldn't be the one enforcing it, they wouldn't have intervened?

I am asking you to assess the merits of the legal justification provided in that paragraph. I can't make that determination, thought you might be able to tear it apart if it totally lacks merit. 

As to whether they would act differently if the issue was an enumerated right, as in your examples, or an unenumerated right such as abortion, I don't know what precedent exists in terms of SCOTUS, but would think it likely that they might be treated differently. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Anastasis

[Js1 87206]

2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

And then the Turtle would have held up that confirmation vote too.

The window for blaming RBG for not retiring closed on January 3, 2015.  Mitch would not have confirmed her replacement in a lame-duck term.  

Seriously, 100k people get their head out their asses and Hillary wins Wisconsin, PA, Michigan and Dems win Senate races in PA and WI races and the court is 6-3 liberal for 30 years. 

[RomaVicta 30605]

11 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Need to get to work

A high school girl will get pregnant and tell a friend. The friend will casually mention it to another friend who will tell her fanatical parents. 

The pregnant girl will consult her mother. Her parents agree that an abortion is the best course of action.

The fanatics rat them out. The girl's pregnancy goes public against her wishes. 

It's an open carry state. Both the fanatics and the girl's parents are always armed. It's not a large community. They meet in a grocery store parking lot. The pregnant girl is now showing. 

The fanatics come over to praise the girl for having the child. It's a sacred human life. The girl bursts into tears of frustration and anger. Her dad lays hands on the fanatic father in fury. This is his daughter!

Fanatical dad pulls his pistol and points it at the angry father. Father pulls his. "You don't have the guts, you sorry sack of shit."

Somebody moves in a threatening way. It's hard to read the sequence because it happens so fast. Both men fire. The women pull their guns and fire at the men then each other. Two of the shooters are mortally wounded. A few passersby are wounded, one in the spine.

The pregnant girl, collapsed on the pavement howls in horror.

Other people in the parking lot pulled their guns, but none discharged their weaponss. In al the horror, at least a general outbreak of gunfire did not erupt.

Thank you Governor Abbott and the conscienceless filth who claim you as a leader. I'll always remember you yukking it up with former president Trump at the border as that malign piece of shit cracked wise about the sitting President of the United States. I wish LBJ or Sam Houston were around to cuff you right out of your chair.

[Captainant 28571]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This seems dogmatic. 

Hollow criticism from someone whose entire opposition to abortion is dogmatic

[wildcat09 29595]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Putting aside the specific topic at hand, is the legal justification provided below total legal horseshit, or does it have some merit and its just a matter of people takes sides based on the topic and the outcome? Would a different case with a different set of plaintiffs potentially fare differently wrt to relief while it played out in the court system?

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 21A24

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[September 1, 2021] The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied. To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunction, an applicant must carry the burden of making a “strong showing” that it is “likely to succeed on the merits,” that it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” that the balance of the equities favors it, and that a stay is consistent with the public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009); Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 66 (2020) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)). The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013) (“threatened injury must be certainly impending” (citation omitted)). The State has represented 2 WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 163 (1908). Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application. In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.

It's total legal horseshit. SCOTUS ignores the types of procedural technicalities it's hiding behind all the time. It did it earlier this year to issue an emergency injunction that blocked California covid restrictions on in-home gatherings based upon a novel interpretation of the free exercise clause that wasn't even supported by prior precedent, but here they're hiding behind the technicalities to ignore a blatant violation of existing precedent that is also an absolutely blatant First Amendment violation. 

[elfenix 34754]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

As to whether they would act differently if the issue was an enumerated right, as in your examples, or an unenumerated right such as abortion, I don't know what precedent exists in terms of SCOTUS, but would think it likely that they might be treated differently. 

9th amendment working out so well

Edited September 2, 2021 by elfenix

[Anastasis 23723]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

blatant First Amendment violation

You mentioned first amendment issues earlier with your comment about people being fined for "speaking out".  What are you referring to specifically in SB8?  I only skimmed the thing. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21557]

33 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Need to get to work

I’m gonna start reporting every trumpet’s daughter I know.

I know all those little fake Christian whores are getting abortions.

Edited September 2, 2021 by DigglerontheHoof

[RomaVicta 30605]

9 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

can one of you computer geniuses write a program that floods this site with millions and millions of "reports", basically a DOS attack? bonus if all the reports are of state elected R who voted for this abortion. I'll donate tree fiddy to the cause.

I believe you're abetting abortion. Send me $5K, and I won't point the finger.

I hadn't thought of how apt this movie and the original are for awhile.

[mchookem 16775]

i'll never forget the day i learned that the only time abortion IS actually mentioned in the bible is when your wife gets pregnant by fucking your neighbor, in which case you just take her to your local neighborhood priest and he'll give that whore an abortion for you so you can save face. 

it's like a Salem witch trial for sluts. awesome!

Numbers 5:

The priest is to write these curses on a scroll^(R) and then wash them off into the bitter water. ²⁴ He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. ²⁵ The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord^(S) and bring it to the altar. ²⁶ The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial^[c] offering^(T) and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. ²⁷ If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.^(U) 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

²⁹ “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray^(V) and makes herself impure while married to her husband, ³⁰ or when feelings of jealousy^(W) come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. ³¹ The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences^(X) of her sin.’”

[hobbes2702 13492]

So what’s the surly plan for mass tips to that website?

Edited September 2, 2021 by hobbes2702

[Js1 87206]

Florida is following suit and crafting their own similar bill.

 

[Aqua Buddha 14807]

Just now, Js1 said:

Florida is following suit and crafting their own similar bill.

 

Get ready for every conservative state in the country to do just that.

[wildcat09 29595]

Just now, Anastasis said:

You mentioned first amendment issues earlier with your comment about people being fined for "speaking out".  What are you referring to specifically in SB8?  I only skimmed the thing. 

I'll quote the statute:

 Sec. 171.208.  CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR
     ABETTING VIOLATION. (a)  Any person, other than an officer or
     employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
     bring a civil action against any person who:
                  (1)  performs or induces an abortion in violation of
     this subchapter;
                  (2)  knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
     the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
     or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
     otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
     this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
     have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
     violation of this subchapter; or

      (3)  intends to engage in the conduct described by
     Subdivision (1) or (2).

This is much broader than it might appear. It isn't a question of did you physically assist someone in obtaining an abortion after 6 weeks, it's merely did you knowingly do anything that might've persuaded someone to get an abortion after 6 weeks, even if you didn't even know or have any reason to know that it would actually persuade someone to get an abortion after 6 weeks. It's not really a stretch to say that I could be liable under this for simply posting on Facebook that Roe protects the right to get an abortion up to 22-24 weeks, if someone who I don't even know reads it and it persuades her to get an abortion in the 7th week.

The statute does include a savings clause:

  (g)  This section may not be construed to impose liability on
     any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United
     States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the
     United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth
     Amendment of the United States Constitution, or by Section 8,
     Article I, Texas Constitution.

This again isn't what it appears, though, as it can be subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications, depending on the particular facts at issue, how broadly or narrowly a judge wants to construe "speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment...", whether a particular protection has actually been made applicable to the states via incorporation, etc.  And even if you can ultimately assert the First Amendment as an affirmative defense, you can't recover attorneys' fees under the statute so you're still being hit with a large financial penalty.

[brakeman 28754]

[sidis 10018]

these are the key sentences in the paragraph:

"The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue."

• well, that is interesting...perhaps that warrants injunctive relief since you acknowledge there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the law.

"But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. [...] And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention.  [...] the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law."

• but no, we don't need to because texas wrote it to be an enabler of citizen "arrests" or enforcement which IS SO FUCKING NOVEL that we are instead just going to play with our dicks instead.  it is the novelty.  perhaps if texas would have said they will shoot all abortion doctors into the sun, we could reach the same conclusion because there are novel antecedent procedural questions.  just as long as we outsource the process to totally unqualified people that do not otherwise enjoy a position of authority for which they have been elected or appointed.

 

[sidis 10018]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You mentioned first amendment issues earlier with your comment about people being fined for "speaking out".  What are you referring to specifically in SB8?  I only skimmed the thing. 

the aid and abets language of sb8 is so utterly vague, that it could easily extend to anyone merely suggesting that an abortion would be way to go.  until it is tested through cases, we have no way of knowing to what point it extends.

you could potentially have standing to sue me right now for participating on this thread.

[Gap03 3394]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Abbott was just on CNBC trying to downplay this.  Don’t know what he said because I was on a call.  They did have a graphic about 2/3 of white collar women wanting to avoid Texas.  
I’d like to see the interview once they post it on the inter-Google.

Pretty sure that's by design - the Texas GOP don't want none of them uppity-type wimens comin' round here ...

[Anastasis 23723]

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

these are the key sentences in the paragraph:

"The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue."

• well, that is interesting...perhaps that warrants injunctive relief since you acknowledge there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the law.

"But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. [...] And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention.  [...] the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law."

• but no, we don't need to because texas wrote it to be an enabler of citizen "arrests" or enforcement which IS SO FUCKING NOVEL that we are instead just going to play with our dicks instead.  it is the novelty.  perhaps if texas would have said they will shoot all abortion doctors into the sun, we could reach the same conclusion because there are novel antecedent procedural questions.  just as long as we outsource the process to totally unqualified people that do not otherwise enjoy a position of authority for which they have been elected or appointed.

 

Are the legal cites behind the [...] bullshit and inappropriately applied?

 

I do agree that the first point should be compelling enough to take up the issue, procedural questions aside, no matter the complexity or novelty.  

[Chewy's Hairy Horn 868]

48 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

[wildcat09 29595]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

the aid and abets language of sb8 is so utterly vague, that it could easily extend to anyone merely suggesting that an abortion would be way to go.  until it is tested through cases, we have no way of knowing to what point it extends.

you could potentially have standing to sue me right now for participating on this thread.

And what's outrageous is that's the fucking point of this statute and SCOTUS just shrugged its shoulders. 

A pretty basic foundational element of anything we would recognize as a free society is that you can't just be punished for doing something you have no idea is even against any rules. This doesn't just throw that out the window, it throws it off the top of the Burj Dubai.

[sidis 10018]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Are the legal cites behind the [...] bullshit and inappropriately applied?

 

I do agree that the first point should be compelling enough to take up the issue, procedural questions aside, no matter the complexity or novelty.  

i am not an judge or attorney and i have not read all the case cites that they rely on...but i did look at the California v. Texas case that they heavily lean on for not intervening because texas officials would not enforce the law has pretty fucking specious application in my opinion.  i'm going off memory but they shot down texas as having standing in texas vs. usa in which texas sued saying enforcement of obamacare was unconstitutional. ussc focused heavily on traceability of damages from enforcement of minimum coverage requirements and standing.  its application here is pretty bizarre imo.

also, just for fun i went back and looked, despite alito relying heavily on it here...he wrote a scathing dissent to the conclusions in California v. Texas.

[F250 29202]

47 minutes ago, dcbc said:

And then the Turtle would have held up that confirmation vote too.

So the plan was to wait and see if the Democratic Party could possibly win a 3rd Presidential term and hope that McConnell changes his mind?

 

 

 

[elfenix 34754]

how long until we sue potty patrick and abbott for abetting abortion for failing to fund sex ed, women's health, contraceptive funding, etc.?

[wildcat09 29595]

Another problem with the Court's behavior here is the likelihood that they'll strike down Roe/Casey in the pending Mississippi abortion case. They're saying they can't hear a challenge to the Texas law until someone brings a procedurally proper challenge, which would require someone being sued for violating it and asserting the constitutional right to an abortion as an affirmative defense. But if they strike down Roe and eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion as a defense, that might mean that this law can never be properly challenged.

All of the equities at issue here fall on one side of the fucking scale and the majority just totally ignored them and decided to annihilate the rule of law, because it served their immediate partisan desires.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Unless you overturn Roe v. Wade the law is plainly unconstitutional. All the legal mumbo jumbo and procedural dodges by the courts including the supremes isn’t gonna change that. 
 

What some of y’all are failing to consider is how much of a political disaster this is gonna be for the Texas republicans once civil lawsuits by abortion bounty hunters start getting filed against rape victims, kids and their parents seeking MONEY.

[sidis 10018]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Another problem with the Court's behavior here is the likelihood that they'll strike down Roe/Casey in the pending Mississippi abortion case. They're saying they can't hear a challenge to the Texas law until someone brings a procedurally proper challenge, which would require someone being sued for violating it and asserting the constitutional right to an abortion as an affirmative defense. But if they strike down Roe and eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion as a defense, that might mean that this law can never be properly challenged.

All of the equities at issue here fall on one side of the fucking scale and the majority just totally ignored them and decided to annihilate the rule of law, because it served their immediate partisan desires.

that's precisely what i was thinking.  i suppose the way we will find out how full of shit alito, thomas, kavanaugh, barrett, and gorsuch are is if once a citizen sues another one for an abortion or aiding and abetting, then that defendant can file an emergency appeal to the ussc challenging constitutionality...the novelty and begging off for making a law that is unenforced by the defendant is then out the window.

someone with some time and money needs to just cooperatively file a suit TODAY against someone else under the law so that the defendant of that case can take it up to the ussc with the legs kicked out from under the partisan fuckfaces' procedural begging off.

Edited September 2, 2021 by sidis

[Aqua Buddha 14807]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Unless you overturn Roe v. Wade the law is plainly unconstitutional. All the legal mumbo jumbo and procedural dodges by the courts including the supremes isn’t gonna change that. 
 

What some of y’all are failing to consider is how much of a political disaster this is gonna be for the Texas republicans once civil lawsuits by abortion bounty hunters start getting filed against rape victims, kids and their parents seeking MONEY.

The political blowback on this is going to be interesting.  In the VA governor race, the Republican candidate is actively staying away from this.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just got done reading the statute because I had always thought the law would be blocked by the courts anyway. Wrong again jj.

it is not hyperbole to state it is the most draconian law in the United States I have ever read that doesn’t involve black slavery. It is unbelievably bad and is going to be an absolute disaster in this state and the republicans are gonna pay a huge price for it. 

[Chuckie Finster 23090]

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

The political blowback on this is going to be interesting.  In the VA governor race, the Republican candidate is actively staying away from this.  

I may have missed it, but I don't think I've seen ANY Republican politician weigh in on this yet.  

One question from a non-legal mind: I've seen numerous references to this bill "punishing women who have miscarriages"... can anyone elaborate on that part?

Edited September 2, 2021 by Chuckie Finster

[Willfully Horn 8267]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I guess I take a bit of umbrage at this just because the social benefits of there being lots of vegans around just seems to me to be unassailable from a environmental, and assuming the meat isn't all from hunting, an animal cruelty standpoint, if you just exclude the beating you get from having to actually deal with vegans.  On the flip side, as far as anti-abortion, you get a beating plus you get lots of unwanted children. 

 

 

I tried to narrowly frame my comparison, and do not quarrel with your take, other than specifically milk and honey. I don’t see the cruelty in keeping dairy cows or bees, but maybe I have missed something.

[NAVY 6970]

I’m so god damn mad. Vigilante enforcement by Karen and Chad? Fuck you Texas gov.
 

History Channel’s Texas Abortion Hunters tonight at 8:00. 
 

Going to need to fight this morality policing tooth and nail. 
 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Although it’s not clear to me their intent, the writers of this horror story apparently included the women who get abortions, like 17 year old girls raped by their uncles, as potential defendants for the abortion bounty hunters to sue for money. After all they are “aiding and abetting” the abortion. I admit I haven’t studied it closely though so I could be wrong about that. 

[Willfully Horn 8267]

4 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

WTF?

 

Rejection of comparison noted.

[JimmyJames 12271]

27 minutes ago, elfenix said:

how long until we sue potty patrick and abbott for abetting abortion for failing to fund sex ed, women's health, contraceptive funding, etc.?

You can’t. They exempted themselves and any other government official from any suit. And no I’m not joking. Lol

[Willfully Horn 8267]

20 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I may have missed it, but I don't think I've seen ANY Republican politician weigh in on this yet.  

One question from a non-legal mind: I've seen numerous references to this bill "punishing women who have miscarriages"... can anyone elaborate on that part?

Any person in the US can claim the fetus was aborted. The woman, and whoever else named in suit, is obligated to defend themselves in court, or lose, and cannot recoup lawyer fees.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[JimmyJames 12271]

The old English phrase “too clever by half” comes to mind. 

[Homercles 10206]

I’ve lived in Texas for over half my life, from 96-98 and 2002-present.  Always maintained the only things I didn’t like here were the heat and the politics…
 

The embarrassment and outrage from the politics here just keeps ramping at a near-exponential pace with shit like bathroom bills, covid orders, electrical grid policies, gun laws and now abortion.  If my family weren’t so entrenched I’d be outta here.  

[Chooky 13340]

Also very efficient of Texas to time this legislation with a dreadfully underfunded oversight system to foster care facilities while simultaneously scoffing at any notion of a paid maternity leave.  I guess we can build these levees in the middle of the white water flood.  "What's that?  Subsidized daycare?  Hold on and let me check my notes.  Oh!  Here it is in the file that we titled 'HAHAHAHAHAHA.'  Now kindly fuck off, you socialists!"

And here's some more good news for the precious children:

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/09/texas-foster-care-lawsuit-judge/
 

Quote

 

Two years after U.S. District Judge Janis Jack ordered a long list of reforms for the Texas foster care system, state health and human services officials have made some improvements. But on Tuesday, Jack again decided they haven’t done enough.

 

 

Quote

 

* Last year, Jack found state officials in contempt of court on two separate occasions for not making enough progress on her orders, which include timely investigations of abuse and neglect in foster homes, increased oversight of residential facilities that house children and improved communication between state agencies that oversee foster children and license their facilities.

 

* A report of persistent abuses at Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, a long-term residential facility near Galveston, triggered the hearing after court-appointed monitors found that staff at the facility consistently used injury-inducing physical restraints on children and multiple staff members had been accused of neglect or sexual assault.

* Kerrie Judice, a child protective services research and policy analyst for the nonprofit TexProtects, said investigations often take long because caseworkers have overwhelming caseloads and each one requires thorough reporting. But she said they still need to be completed in a timely manner.

* As of Jan. 24, 485 investigations on reports of abuse had remained open for more than 30 days, and only 38 of those had valid extensions, Jack said.

* “I'm just trying to get my head around — you all are paying Devereux to have these children raped and restrained, abused and not educated,” Jack said during the hearing.

 

 

 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6597]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You can’t. They exempted themselves and any other government official from any suit. And no I’m not joking. Lol

I am not a lawyer but how is that legal?  Can a politician pass a bill exempting themselves from breaking a law also or just being sued?

[JimmyJames 12271]

I actually think the Texas taliban passed this thing to appease its nut job base thinking the courts would just bail them out and block it anyway. 
 

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I am not a lawyer but how is that legal?  Can a politician pass a bill exempting themselves from breaking a law also or just being sued?

The government exempts itself from laws all the time. Which they did. I suppose you could try to argue they are liable in their individual capacity but good luck with that and there’s also the whole qualified immunity bar anyway. 

[Aqua Buddha 14807]

14 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You can’t. They exempted themselves and any other government official from any suit. And no I’m not joking. Lol

Their families aren't.

[elfenix 34754]

13 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You can’t. They exempted themselves and any other government official from any suit. And no I’m not joking. Lol

they exempted themselves from liability for validity.  we wouldn't be challenging the validity. 

i think the general sovereign immunity might put a wrench in such a suit, though. 

[Willfully Horn 8267]

Is there any reason an individual lawyer can’t file voluminous, frivolous suits against every haired-over female member of R legislative families?

[elfenix 34754]

Just now, Willfully Horn said:

Is there any reason an individual lawyer can’t file voluminous, frivolous suits against every haired-over female member of R legislative families?

after a while you'd probably draw some discipline.  though jared woodfill still seems to have his license.

[Foosters 18285]

10 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I may have missed it, but I don't think I've seen ANY Republican politician weigh in on this yet.  

One question from a non-legal mind: I've seen numerous references to this bill "punishing women who have miscarriages"... can anyone elaborate on that part?

Just taking a guess, but lets say Jane is 4 months pregnant and that information is public. She then has a miscarriage. Some random person decides that her no longer being pregnant is probably because she got an abortion. Suit commences. Jane prevails. Doesn't get to recover attorney fees and gets to spend months litigating her tragedy.

 

[sidis 10018]

Just now, Foosters said:

Just taking a guess, but lets say Jane is 4 months pregnant and that information is public. She then has a miscarriage. Some random person decides that her no longer being pregnant is probably because she got an abortion. Suit commences. Jane prevails. Doesn't get to recover attorney fees and gets to spend months litigating her tragedy.

 

you act like this is problematic for greg abbott, dan patrick, and briscoe cain.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1279]

Does the law allow a plaintiff to obtain a patient’s protected health information? How does discovery work in these cases?

[Chooky 13340]

Also a huge shoutout to the Bernie Bro movement that walked in stride with the new Centrality Leftist Populist Progressive Thangg! that stayed home on election day in 2016 or even actively voted for opposition in order to punish the evil "mainstream, establishment DNC."  Well done.  This is what happens when you breast feed from the Jimmy Dore/Not Gonna Take It Anymore internet gibberish.  Cheers for helping trojan horse Gorsuch, Barret and Kavanaugh through the gates.  Boy, I bet it was all worth it so you could lash out for cathartic relief in your self-indulgent, grievance angst.  Well played.