How to get around the Texas law

[rdking647]

Open up abortion clinics on Texas military bases. Fort hood, lackland, etc. use military docs to perform the abortions. That also means no anti abortion protestors since they can be removed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Good idea, but aren't those clinics only available to military personnel and family? Nt

[rdking647]

2. Biden could change that with a stroke of the pen

[Ilsa]

28. Hyde Amendment probably prevents that. nt

[dalton99a]

3. And military doctors don't have to be licensed in Texas

[Rollo]

4. What is to prevent Texas women from traveling to a blue state for their procedures?

It would be perfectly legal in states like California and New York, after all.

[rdking647]

5. That's not a viable option for the poor

Much easier to go to a local military base.

[qazplm135]

11. nothing

there's nothing preventing her from getting the procedure in Texas either.

The law doesn't target her, it targets anyone who helps her. So if her boyfriend drives her to airport to get on a plane, or drives her to the NM border, or helps her research abortion clinics in CA, any of those could in theory put him on the hook for 10K.

[marie999]

13. What if she drives herself, or "wins" a free trip in a contest?

[qazplm135]

22. it doesn't target her

so she's always covered.

If the free trip wasn't about getting an abortion, probably fine.

Then again, doesn't prevent anyone from getting sued and having to pay attorney fees.

Even a frivolous suit has no consequences to being filed.

[MissMillie]

24. Actually from the analysis I heard on NPR this morning

The law does not pertain to those who assist women to get abortions in other states--only abortions in TX.

I think this is because if someone sues, they'd need to subpoena the medical records, and an out-of-state clinic would not have to comply. In TX, the medical records are now, thanks to this idiotic law and the Supreme Court, not private.

[qazplm135]

25. It does pertain

there's a difference between whether one can be sued, and whether or not that suit could be successful.
So yeah, maybe a case would ordinarily be harder to win because of a lack of medical records.
Even if it's frivolous, you are still on the hook for attorney's fees.
And if there's other evidence of the abortion (like she told someone she was pregnant, and then she wasn't, and told people she was going out of state to get an abortion) that can be enough in a civil suit where 50.1 percent is the standard.

So I'll have to disagree with that analysis. Of course, I'm just one attorney disagreeing with other attorneys, but I have the benefit of not underestimating the limits crazy people and conservative judges will go to.

[TZ617]

33. After reading the text of the law, I don't think it does pertain

The law states that anyone (other than state officials--to skirt the Constitution) can bring suit against a person who violates the "sub-chapter". Since the law of what is disallowed regarding abortion can only apply in Texas, anyone aiding a person to obtain an abortion outside of the state should in no way be liable under this wording, since the abortion in question was not in violation of this law.

That only follows logic. If five people plan a bank robbery while living in Texas, then travel to Illinois to rob the bank, Texas has no recourse against them. Only Illinois, or possibly the Feds, depending on the bank.

[qazplm135]

34. I 100 percent disagree

If Texas has a law against aiding and abetting bank robbers, and then the bank robbery takes place in Arkansas, or more importantly, they only INTEND on robbing that bank, take affirmative steps to do so, and then fail to, you saying that they can't charge anyone with conspiracy because the bank was located outside of Texas?

Yeah, don't think so.

[TZ617]

38. Wrong idea

Robbing a bank in Arkansas would be illegal. Even then, not much would be done by Texas in that scenario. However, having an abortion in Illinois is not illegal and no Texas law can make it illegal. Therefore, your argument does not hold.

In texas (think I'll start using texas with no capital!) prostitution is illegal. However, five business associates could plan a junket to Clark County, Nevada, with the express intent of visiting a brothel. No texas law, now or future, could make the planning of that trip illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I do not put anything past these cretins. Many of them would undoubtedly be happy to make it illegal to even think about voting for a Democratic candidate, wear a mask or get a Covid vaccine. Fortunately, we haven't quite gotten to that point, yet.

[qazplm135]

39. couple of responses

1. Nothing stops anyone from suing frivolously under this law. So even if everything you say is true, it wouldn't stop a single suit from being filed, or the attorney fees that would need to be gathered to defend since failure to appear is default judgment.

2. It was an analogy. This isn't a criminal law either. It's a civil law. It allows civil suits to happen if someone aids someone else in getting an abortion after six weeks. It doesn't require that abortion to occur! It only requires intent for it to occur. This law doesn't make anything "illegal," it authorizes state citizens to have the right to sue for damages. This is the scheme and intent to get around normal legal limits and analysis.

[TZ617]

41. One additional point

Not to get too far into the weeds, as we certainly agree on the lack of merit of this insanity!

My reading of the following partial paragraph indicates that the "liability" can only be conferred on those whose actions, even in theory aid or abet a situation "where the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter". Again, nothing the texas legislature can do makes an abortion out of state a "violation of this subchapter." Here's the quote:

---
" (Any person who) 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 . . ."
---

Again, the text clearly states that the statute of aiding abetting is only violated "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter."

[qazplm135]

42. you're assuming

that means "in the state of Texas" and not "more than six weeks after the last period."

I just thinking you are giving a level of charitable reading or even logical reading that perhaps isn't workable in this particular situation.

And I just go back to the fact that not contesting the suit is automatic loss, so that means you need an attorney, even for frivolous suits without merit, because of the lack of sanctions for such lawsuits.

You're also assuming a right wing state judge is going to see it that way even if you are again ordinarily 100 percent right.

I think there's a mess of uncertainty here, and the smart move is to err on the side of anything being fair game until something definitive says otherwise given the very loose way this bill was written.

[roamer65]

45. That's a HIPAA violation.

Big bucks for unauthorized disclosure.

[progressoid]

29. Time and money.

[Johonny]

40. Nothing, it's a law written by the upper class to punish the lower class

with a rule the upper class can easily avoid.

Most Republican laws are meant as class control and not meant to bother or apply to the ruling class.

[bluestarone]

6. IF this could happen

I'm all for it!

[monkeyman1]

27. this should blow up ABBOTT'S skirt !

[hauckeye]

7. What about Native American reservations? Aren't they autonomous?

[dalton99a]

8. Texas has almost no Indian lands

Native Americans were pretty much either exterminated or driven onto reservations in other states.

[hauckeye]

9. Thanks I was wondering that

[Gruenemann]

46. There are three reservations in Texas

Alabama-Coushatta, Tigua, and Kickapoo.

[dalton99a]

47. The combined land area is smaller than the Texas A&M campus

Very few people know about them - the white settlers wanted them gone

[qazplm135]

10. most military bases are actually

joint jurisdiction between the Feds and state.

In fact, several bases are a hodgepodge quilt of areas that are exclusive Federal or concurrent State/Federal jurisdiction.

The problem is that while the bases might be federal, the "aid and abetting" to get her there still occurs within the state of Texas. So the aiders would be still on the hook as Texas residents.

[marie999]

16. Most pregnant women can drive themselves.

A friend can be in the car with them to drive them home.

[qazplm135]

21. if they are driving themselves,

they can just go to a clinic in Texas.

The threat isn't to the pregnant woman, it's to anyone helping her.

[BamaRefugee]

26. But why would the people at the clinic want to be sued every hour of every day forever?

They would be "helping" no?
I can't see clinics staying open when the entire staff has to spend every waking hour of their lives in a courtroom.

[qazplm135]

37. I'm not arguing that

this is designed to avoid the pregnant woman but make her toxic to anyone helping her.

[dalton99a]

17. It doesn't apply if the aid enables a woman to get an abortion where it is legal

e.g. Oklahoma and Kansas - clinics there are reporting an increase in patients from Texas

[qazplm135]

20. does the law say that?

I don't think it does.

Going to another state certainly protects abortion providers in Texas, but it doesn't protect the boyfriend who drives her to OK or KS.

[Ms. Toad]

32. It does, but you have to jump around a bit.

It is a subchapter of a state law banning abortions. Because this is a state matter, the law passed within the state of Texas bans only abortions within the state of Texas, since Texas has no authority to ban abortions outside of texas.

The civil actions authorized by the law are for violations of "this subchapter" (which is limited ot banning abortions within the state of texas).

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).

Had they omitted the reference to "this subchapter" you would be correct.

[qazplm135]

36. respectfully

I don't think that's an obvious or clear reading at all.

In violation of this subchapter can simply mean, outside of six weeks from the last period.

I'll go back to what I said before, if someone plans for a bank heist to take place in ARkansas in Texas, and takes the substantial steps to do so in Texas, they don't even have to go through with the heist to be charged with conspiracy, in Texas.

The broader point is NONE of what either of us is arguing pertains to the ability to force someone to pay for an attorney to defend a suit even if you are right and I am wrong, because there's no penalty for a frivolous suit.

[snowybirdie]

12. I'm concerned

that Mexico will step up and expand abortion services. In the past women treated there had very bad outcomes. Not the same sanitation and physician quality.

[samnsara]

15. i bet American Drs ( or midwives) will set up clinics. Ive know lots of folks who go there

..for other medical procedures and not had horrible outcomes.

[Elessar Zappa]

31. Mexico's come a long way in medical services.

Their hospitals and medical clinics are very modern.

[samnsara]

14. or go in for the ol D and C and E

[Hortensis]

18. For civilians? Can enlisted women get them? I thought elective abortions

at military clinics were still illegal because of the enormous controversy and opposition among much of our population.

Whatever. Itm, if I had a sexually active daughter these days, aside from contraception and until this evil law was struck down, I'd purchase early pregnancy tests and abortion pills ahead of possible need and keep the receipt. We're not in the 1950s any more.

[rdking647]

19. biden could ovreruleany such ban by executive order

in the name of "national security"

[Hortensis]

23. Not going to happen, Rd. We're already scary-narrow election margins

away from an electoral coup that would enable a permanent RW authoritarian takeover. Think RW police state and, depending on how extreme, even executions for getting an abortion, prison for sure.

Btw, the particularly crazy people who've come to fear and hate us on the right, and are even spreading deadly disease among themselves out of political malice? They're the same kind of people, behaving the same rabid ways, who elected Hitler and supported everything he did.

The position that abortion is murder of babies has become part of the conservative identity. It's the nazi types' lone remaining "principle," which provides them justification for everything bad they do -- in their minds anyway. At the moment, short of dousing them with gasoline, I actually can't think of a better way to set their hair on fire than to use the military to expand availability of elective abortions to the entire nation. Even pro-abortion RWers would be outraged.

[Glaisne]

30. Texas,

the state that went to war twice to preserve slavery.

[progressoid]

35. The Hyde Amendment EOM

[marie999]

43. Some of you are saying that even though you will win the case you still have to pay for your lawyer.

I would imagine there are enough lawyers who would take the case pro bono.

[marie999]

44. This best thing right now would be to sue every Republican woman in the state.