Question Regarding Texas Abortion Law

[angrychair]

Serious question: am I missing something in this new Texas law? As I understand it there is no criminal penalty to this law and it requires people to report a known abortion to the court to get the 10k bounties.

How does a private citizen prove it happened? Medical privacy laws prevent the disclosure of these procedures.

Am I missing something?

[mopinko]

1. private conversations.

abusive bf's and ex's get a license to protect their own fetus. still marrieds assholes, too.
and force their own ex, wife, gf, ex-gf, into birth slavery.

[Tree Lady]

2. Actually I was thinking if there is no criminal penalty

Basically its a money thing. People from all the blue states could send money to clinics in case they get sued. A lot of wasted money going to some real jerks but they can't prevent the abortion.

[David__77]

3. I'm trying to think of how to turn the law in some unintended fashion.

That will be important.

[angrychair]

5. Exactly

Its a money thing. Nothing about this law actually stops doctors from continuing to preform reproductive healthcare. No one is getting arrested.
As far as I am concerned fuck them, its still business as usual.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Doctors and medical facilities can't afford to defend these lawsuits

Even if they could win in the end. Many of them have already begun to decline to perform abortion services for this reason. That's the point of this law - not for people to get money damages but to badger abortion providers into refusing to perform services.

[angrychair]

11. I guess I still don't get it

They don't have to mount a legal defense. The burden of proof is in the accuser. The clinics literally have to do nothing.

[StarfishSaver]

14. They have to mount a defense even if the claim is baseless

It takes a while to get to the point that the case is thrown out for lack of evidence. In the meantime, the defendants have to respond to the complaint and possibly other pleadings, which takes time and money. One or two cases may not be a big deal but if they are sued by multiple plaintiffs in multiple cases, that can be expensive and debilitating.

These cases may be difficult to win, but they're not difficult to bring.

[angrychair]

17. Good point

I would suspect that lining up legal firms willing to work Pro Bono for them and a GoFundMe or other private legal defense fund donations could make the cost and legal issues insignificant at that point.

I think there is a realistic and viable way forward that would make the law almost irrelevant.

[StarfishSaver]

21. But in the meantime ...

That will take awhile.

Every option people on DU are coming up with have been considered by these providers, who are in the middle of this and know all of the available courses of action. They obviously have determined that those options are not viable in the short term to prevent serious consequences to them. Hence the denials of service at this point.

[bluestarone]

18. Question:

Couldn't they counter sue for Attorney fees?

[StarfishSaver]

19. The law specifically prohibits recover of attorney fees, even if the defendant prevails.

How convenient ...

[bluestarone]

20. Couldn't THIS part of their bullshit bill

Be UNCONSTITUTIONAL? (i mean just the part that says prohibit recovery?)

[StarfishSaver]

23. Probably not

That particular provision, in and of itself, is likely not unconstitutional since there is no constitutional right to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit. But that provision could help to prove the unconstitutionality of the overall bill in that it is one of many aspects of it that are intended to impose substantial burdens on a woman's right to choose.

[bluestarone]

25. Gotcha!!

TY! They are really dirty bastards!

[StarfishSaver]

26. Yup. They are

[angrychair]

6. Maybe

But that is still their opinion. To get the 10k they have to sue the doctor or whoever in court and prove it.
How they get people to produce private medical records?

[mopinko]

7. yeah, the burden of proof here is the big question.

but someone in your household....
might get credit card records, phone records, rx wrappers.

i dont think they will be bound by the ordinary rules of evidence.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. The point of this law is simply to get it to the Supremes and angle...

a way to kill Roe. I doubt anyone gets much of a chance to actually use the law.

Shutting down clinics in Texas is a bonus for them.

[angrychair]

9. My question is

Why did the clinics shut down at all? There is nothing in that law that makes it illegal in a criminal justice context.
No one is going to get arrested.
Its a civil issue and the burden of proof is on the accuser and false reports or the inability to prove the accusation has financial implications for the accuser if they cannot prove it.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Correct, but the clinics fear the complications of such nonsense...

Imagine the battles when they are at the center of Karen Lifelover in PA suing over Ima Donawantmybaby and they get hit with a subpoena for medical records even before Karen is held to have standing to sue.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think a bunch ofambulance chasers got together and dreamed this up. Maybe they helped write it.

[leftstreet]

10. +1

It seems like just part of a strategic ongoing effort

I doubt anyone will actually win a lawsuit and get $10k

[FBaggins]

12. You aren't missing anything

It will indeed be difficult to win those cases (even if the first ones get past challenges).

Not just for privacy reasons... but also because it will be hard to prove that the doctor did, in fact, detect a heartbeat when they say they didn't.

But they're counting on lots of clinics being unwilling to take the chance... and thus dramatically reducing the number of abortions in the state

[qazplm135]

15. Another question

If the argument is that the state doesn't enforce the law thus can't be enjoined, then how do they enforce a monetary judgment based on the law?

[Caliman73]

16. I think the endgame is to force providers out.

They can't use the power of government to force them out directly, or it runs afoul of Roe. However, if providers are harassed enough by private citizens suing, they will close up shop.

It is basically Trump style litigation. Trump would hire a contractor, get the work done, refuse to pay, claim some bullshit deficiency, and if the contractor threatened to sue, Trump would strike first, tying up the smaller business in court costs until they settled for pennies on the dollar, or had to fold up.

Texas basically just made vexatious litigation legal, but only for abortion.

[Crepuscular]

22. legal costs will be prohibitive

The point is not that the plaintiffs will win these lawsuits, it's that no provider can afford the legal costs of defending these lawsuits, instead they will simply not provide abortion services.

If a provider has to pony up the cost of a defense attorney and can't by statute be reimbursed for those legal costs if they successfully defend themselves, then that business will quickly become unsustainable, which is the whole point from the pro-life crowd. How much does it cost to file a lawsuit? Not much and I'm sure there will be plenty of right ti life groups paying the legal fees for these filings.

Again, this is the same tactic that was contemplated by gun reform groups, bleed the manufactures dry with legal defense fees to the point that their business is simply not sustainable. The difference being that Congress specifically passed a law to frustrate those efforts and protect the gun manufacturers from specious liability suits.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Excellent post

Thanks!