General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf a pregnant woman leaves the state of TX and gets an abortion elsewhere
can the bounty hunters still go after her?
BigmanPigman
(51,432 posts)they'll end up adding it on soon enough. This thing is going to grow, especially with lawsuits coming out of the woodwork. Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, fast.
Claustrum
(4,845 posts)I won't be surprised if they ignore the jurisdiction portion of the law too. It's beyond ridiculous.
Lovie777
(11,992 posts)if and when other red states basically adopts Texas shitty law, each of those red states can have an agreement with each other concerning bounty hunters turning in the women's names.
Cattledog
(5,897 posts)3Hotdogs
(12,210 posts)Hekate
(90,202 posts)
one of these civil suits against Runaway Texas Women and anyone who helped them get across the border.
question everything
(47,271 posts)Say a woman gets a pregnancy test at, say, Walmart where she can be anonymous and than leaves the state. Who would know if she had not told anyone?
Hekate
(90,202 posts)The accuser is meant to be an ordinary pro-life citizen just trying to protect the lives of unborn zygotes.
This is vigilantism and lynching at their finest. The accused must hire a lawyer $$$ and prove their own innocence $$$. Easy peasy for a poor woman, amirite? If you helped her in any way (aided and abetted) in the state of Texas, then you can also be sued by the outraged citizen, and you must also hire a lawyer and defend yourself in court. If you are found innocent, you are still out of pocket for lawyers fees and court costs.
Some here have declared they would ignore such a summons. Brilliant. You are then found guilty in absentia and must pay all court costs, including, I think, the $10,000 bounty to your accuser.
Oh, yes, you were talking about buying a pregnancy test at Walmart. There is no privacy in that.
If you have ever signed up for any stores discount card, you may have noticed that they follow you. I was once in Oregon and stopped to buy some blueberries, and the coupons printed on the receipt included offers for baby diapers, because my adult daughter was still keying in my phone number when she shopped at that chain store in SoCal for groceries and baby supplies.
There have been fathers and mothers of teenage daughters who were considerably perturbed to receive congratulatory packets of coupons for things like pregnancy vitamins and baby supplies after their little girl secretly bought and used a home pregnancy test.
Under His Eye, as they say in Gilead.
question everything
(47,271 posts)of these tests at home even if not needed.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Fuck Texass.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)This is a subsection of existing law.
The subsection bars abortion. Texas cannot regulate the legality of abortion anyplace other than within its borders.
The sub-sub-section authorizing enforcement by private citizens is expressly limited to abortion in violation of "this subsection" - meaning an abortion banned in Texas (the only abortions banned by "this subsection"
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)The law makes abortion in Texas illegal after a heartbeat is detected, and authorizes enforcement by private suit. So while it is true that anyone can file suit (regardless of where they live), It must be for a violation of the new law (i.e. A prohibited abortion within Texas). The suit also has to be brought in a court within Texas, unless it qualifies for diversity jurisdiction (citizens of different states, and more than $75,000 at stake.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Texaswitchy
(2,962 posts)Do the same thing to them.
Stop playing nice.
We are at war.
All former rules are off.
Runningdawg
(4,496 posts)Texaswitchy
(2,962 posts)My people have been in Texas since Mexico owned it.
This is my state, not theirs.
My group we forming are Grandmothers.
I am going to start school Monday.
My friend will teach me how trace people.
I real serious now.
Runningdawg
(4,496 posts)Texaswitchy
(2,962 posts)I will never be as good as she is but I will be ok.
This is for my Grandkids.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)1. No one can go after her, ever, because the law exempts the pregnant woman.
2. So your question has two parts to it: Can someone sue "aiders and abetters" in that scenario, and can they win such a suit?
3. Can they sue? Sure. Why? Because there's no penalty to frivolous lawsuits. Usually, if you file a frivolous lawsuit, your risk having to pay your opponents attorney fees as well as your own. This greatly discourages such lawsuits. Here, each side is stuck with their own attorney fees. So, yeah, they can "go after" anyone involved with helping this pregnant woman going out of state to get an abortion.
4. Can they win such a suit and get the 10K? Argument some are making is no, they can't, because they can't make something illegal in Texas involve a legal act done in another state. There's certainly merit to such an argument, but I am not convinced that's going to be an iron clad protective barrier. So for me, the answer to that question is, probably not, but no guarantee.
So, even if you aren't concerned, think, ah this lawsuit will be thrown out the moment the judge hears it...you're STILL probably going to want to get an attorney, and that's going to cost some amount of money, that you won't be able to get back.
question everything
(47,271 posts)The trick is to keep it secret. Even from a possible vengeful partner.
Hey, Jude, were I became pregnant, what would you do?
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)So as to #2, "usually" you pay your own fees. It is an exception when you can be required to pay the legal fees of the other side.
The law authorizes the plaintiff, in this instance, to obtain legal fees from the defendant. I don't believe it is mutual - but I didn't read that provision very carefully.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)it often is. The judge can order the frivolous side to pay the legal fees of the side they frivolously sued.
This law forbids that.
Section 10.001 SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
"Sec. 10.002. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. (a) A party may make a motion for sanctions, describing the specific conduct violating Section 10.001.
(b) The court on its own initiative may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate Section 10.001 and direct the alleged violator to show cause why the conduct has not violated that section.
(c) The court may award to a party prevailing on a motion under this section the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion, and if no due diligence is shown the court may award to the prevailing party all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred or caused by the subject litigation."
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)A minority of states (including, apparently, Texas) have a frivolous lawsuit exception to the general rule that every party pays its own legal fees.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)The state I live in by the way and where I am barred
https://www.tortreform.com/issue/frivolous-litigation/
So, it's the rule here, and thus, yes, ordinarily, in Texas, there would be risks to bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
This new law removes that risk.
Which means there are no rules really as to who can bring a claim. Whether it succeeds is obviously a whole other story, but if you are stuck paying an attorney you can't afford, or are repeatedly sued if you are say an abortion provider...
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)that the loser pays is an extreme exception, rather that the norm, so I was reasponding to your first statement, which seemed to be general in nature.
It's an evil law, no doubt.
Even though they tried to remove the state as an actor, the scheme should fail reasoning similar to Shelley v Kraemer.
Should, and will, however are not guaranteed to be synonymous given the current court.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)I mean, ultimately, the state has to enforce the monetary judgment so this whole fiction of "oh the state's not an actor" is baloney, but as you say, five conservatives on the Supreme Court appear to be huge fans of baloney.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)it has to render it in the first place - even when the litigants are private citizens (as they were in Shelley v. Kraemer).
Ilsa
(61,675 posts)we are assuming they use it to have affairs.
Jerry2144
(2,046 posts)Is going to explode. If all the women move out of oppressive states or deny sex, there are going to be many more people having to use the self-service pumps
lark
(23,006 posts)Think they could even go after an Uber/Lyft driver if it's proven they know the purpose (this is stupid, how would they ever know this?).
If someone loans her money - they can be sued or if gives her a place to stay overnight for an early flight, think they could be sued under this 100% misogynistic law.
I don't think the pregnant person can be sued, but not sure about that?
question everything
(47,271 posts)lark
(23,006 posts)I really hope the good women of TX step up to this task.
Runningdawg
(4,496 posts)csziggy
(34,120 posts)Or airplane pilots? What if she hitchhikes, can they go after the driver who picks her up?
How could the fascist anti-choice fanatics prove that any of those conveyance operators knew the woman's reason for seeking transportation?
The thing is - they can't. But the big problem is that there is nothing to prevent them from scattering these lawsuit all over the courts, bogging down the courts, and costs uninvolved people thousands of dollars per case.
Personally, I think the ACLU should go after the provision that indemnifies the plaintiffs from having to pay the legal fees when their cases fail. This specifically punishes innocent people without giving them any recourse. I may have to up my contributions to the ACLU with the stipulation that it be used to fight this horrific law.
OK, not perfect, but the best answer I've seen so far. It needs to be attacked on this provision which is patently illegal, although the Nazis in charge of most courts will all be doing this with haste to impress the Evangelicals. I Hope women will rise up against the asses and really invest in electing Democrats who will restore their rights.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)And the law authorizing civil suits expressly ONLY applies to abortions obtained in violation of the new Texas heartbeat law.
So out-of-state abortions are safe, for now.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And would be surely shot down if they tried.
The key is they will try and they will put someone through hell until they wind their way through the system waiting for the judgements.
Mr.Bill
(24,104 posts)since the Texas State Legislature and the Supreme Court have set up camp inside the vaginas of half the population.
Politicub
(12,163 posts)to hunt women down so they can be sued and jailed in the state.
question everything
(47,271 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)It doesn't matter if the woman is 70 years old and has never left the state.
Go after them.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)I don't live in Texas (praise be!) but I wonder what's the downside to pro-choice activists bringing tens of thousands of law suits against:
Republican lawmakers;
Republican funders;
right wing pundits and radio whiners;
anti-choice activists;
anyone with a Trump sign on their lawn;
anti-vaxxers;
and frankly anyone who pisses us off in any way shape or form.
There's no penalty for fivolous suits. I even wonder if an attorney is needed.
I had a friend ages back who, because of serious mental health issues, was constantly filing suit against the people in her life. These were all dismissed as soon as reviewed by a court officer, but nonetheless she was able to file and begin the process.
What would happen if Texas courts were overwhelmed with these suits? Wouldn't this form of civil disobedience be worth pursuing?
It feels strange though. Normally this sort of trolling would entail the possibility of legal pushback. In this case the dolts in the Texas legislature seem to have crafted a way not only to protest this cruel and thoughtless law, but to have a good deal of fun doing it as well.
raccoon
(31,092 posts)Can the busybody bounty hunters still go after her?
ratchiweenie
(7,744 posts)she gives them permission. So how are they going to prove it?