Elie Mystal, a legal expert, says . . .

[Vinca]

Biden would be entirely within his rights to deputize doctors in Texas and make them federal employees with immunity. That's a great idea. Make all clinic employees federal officers and untouchable.

[KS Toronado]

1. Need more information as to how this works

get the impression they would be above the law, and I'm sure that is incorrect.
Like #5 said "Need input"

[WHITT]

5. Qualified Immunity

They cannot be sued. Problem solved.

[SergeStorms]

6. Above the law.

Republican'ts all seem to be "above the law", so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak.

[DeeNice]

20. yeah I need more information about "Standing to Sue"

and how this law gets to just bypass that requirement. Over and over we say "nuh-uh you can't do that" and they say just watch.

[MrModerate]

2. Order the Gilead National Guard to set up "field hospitals" in current abortion providers' offices...

And then contract with the current providers to deliver hands-on care.

All you'd need is one National Guard captain to manage the whole thing.

[wnylib]

47. I like this idea. If it can be done, the

visuals would be great. National Guard at women's clinics to protect them. Reminds me of Eisenhower and Kennedy sending troops to protect students during desegregation of schools, and Kennedy sending in US Marshalls to protect Freedom Riders.

The federal government has a role to play in protecting people's civil rights.

[mopinko]

3. i'm dying to see what they come up with.

i'm fine w not only deputizing clinic staff, i'm fine w the feds paying them.

there HAS TO BE a way to shut this bullshit down.

[Joinfortmill]

4. Interesting

[Native]

7. And how does he propose we protect the person having the abortion?

[berni_mccoy]

8. Exactly... this law is not easily undone.

[jaxexpat]

9. Deputize them as well.

Just add it to the myriad forms already there for signature. Nothing is too hard if there is a will to do it wherein deeds rank above methods.

[cstanleytech]

10. True they could be given it and then after the procedure is over

withdraw it that way any lawsuit will die in a fire.

[jaxexpat]

11. No need to withdraw the deputization.

Why bother? When using dubious means to counter totalitarianism theres no need to get finicky.

[cstanleytech]

23. Because it could be abused later by them if it's

not withdrawn.

[plimsoll]

14. And stop the vigilante posse's from going after everyone they know.

This workaround for enforcement unleashes a real nightmare. How do you keep yourself from being essentially SWATted by your neighborhood dick (not the detective sort).

[FreepFryer]

16. Federal confidential informant protection, a witness to civil rights violations against themself :)

[Sur Zobra]

19. This law doesn't allow

the pregnant woman to be sued, only anyone who facilitates the abortion.

[zuul]

22. I wonder why they excluded pregnant women. Repubes love to punish females.

It must have been an oversight. They obviously didn't put much thought into this whole thing.

It makes me wonder if they thought SCOTUS would rule against them. Then they could continue whining about abortion and using it as a fund-raising tool.

As supposed "pro-life" advocates, Cruz, McConnell, McCarthy and the rest of the repube leaders sure are silent about their SCOTUS win.

[Native]

25. So it's completely legal for me to use a coat hanger on myself...

but if anyone helps me, they're breaking the law. So the mother is allowed to abort her fetus, but no one else is. Yeah, that doesn't exactly sound like it will fly when held up to any legal scrutiny.

[Sur Zobra]

29. They want to shut down all

access to abortion providers. The anti-choice forces want this type of law to spread across the country, thereby eliminating abortion.

[ShazzieB]

39. I think I know why they excluded pregnant women.

They know there are too many people who wouldn't like that sort of thing. Even the most rabid antichoicers don't usually want to send women to jail for having abortions, for example. They're all about punishing the providers directly and letting the punishment for women happen indirectly (i.e., by being deprived of their right to personal autonomy.

I'm sure GOP lawmakers would love to enact steep penalties for the women, but they know that wouldn't be politically expedient.

[reACTIONary]

44. Exactly - nt

[Liberty Belle]

45. They could make it a federal crime to turn in women for seeking abortions, or aiding someone else.

Would take blowing up the filibuster.

But I have concerns over that due to the Pro Act, which could also get slammed through and cost Dems the next election since here in CA it hurt all the small businesses, nonprofits, freelance writers, photographers, musicians, etc. CA eventually passed some exemptions to make it less draconian for many industries (not all) but the federal bill has no such exemptions. it would put our nonprofit media outlet under, probably, and destroy the livelihoods of many others.

My preference is for Biden to expand the court ASAP and get this dreadful ruling overturned.

[wnylib]

48. I'm all for expanding the court,

but we need more Dems in the Senate to do that.

Federalizing the clinics would be faster, but could only be temporary. We can't have federal clinics there indefinitely.

[Vinca]

28. Protect them from the crazies or from the law the other Texas crazies have passed?

If it's the former, that's where law enforcement comes in. As for the latter, the law allows people who assist a woman in any way to be sued, but doesn't have a penalty for the woman herself. That's their sneaky way of weaseling it through the courts. They're giving a right to private citizens to harass other citizens with a cash prize at the end, but not taking away rights in the way the damn thing is worded. I think technically, the clinics could probably continue to do abortions, but they'd be hit with multiple $10,000 lawsuits for all employees for each procedure. Effectively, they've been drummed out of providing abortion services because no organization can be on the hook for that amount of money paid out for each procedure. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.

[ShazzieB]

40. I think you are quite right!

[pnwmom]

34. The law doesn't call for the women themselves to be defendants.

Only the people who helped them.

[Nay]

12. An excellent idea. We need to hit these tinpot dictators HARD and FAST. No fooling around,

wondering what to do. It truly is the only thing they understand.

I'd also consider relocating military bases, personnel, etc., out of Texas if it's going to act like this.

[BarbD]

13. Why doesn't Texas secede?

They can then be truly a rogue state.

[Wounded Bear]

18. Maybe because it worked so well the last time?

Actually, Texas was spared the carnage that Virginia and Georgia suffered. I guess they didn't learn the same lessons.

[wnylib]

49. I'd support them in that and I'm sure

that many other Americans would, too. We should start a Texas secession movement across the country. Throw in Florida, too.

[UTUSN]

15. K&R

[davsand]

17. Wouldn't all this violate HIPPA laws?

I honestly can't see how anybody could ever prove an abortion happened. This is another version of the Salem Witch Trials with accusations being thrown out and never proved.



Laura

[pnwmom]

35. I've been wondering that. nt

[wnylib]

50. The only way they could know for sure is

if they tried to force the doctors and staff to testify, or to release a woman's medical records. But that is a HIPAA violation.

They might send in an undercover "patient" to see who is there and report back to the anti choice groups. Or, get someone hired on the staff as a nurse or janitor to report back to the anti choice groups. But that would also be a HIPAA violation for employees. Don't know if that would apply to fake patients, too.

A distraught pregnant woman is likely to confide in .a friend or relative. The lure of money could make the person they confide in turn against them.

Maybe it's time that we organize an airlift for Texas women to safe, out-of-state abortions. Then help them relocate so they don't have to return.

[Blaukraut]

21. Wouldn't that violate the Hyde Amendment?

If you deputize these doctors to make them fed employees, they would get paid by the federal government.

[Vinca]

27. That's a good question, but I say to hell with it. Apparently, laws no longer apply to anyone

in this country so Joe should just do it and let them take it to court. Chances are it will fold in the end because of the Bible thumpers on the Supreme Court, but at least some women would get the medical care they want for their bodies in the meantime.

[Mr.Bill]

31. Pay the doctors for consulting work if the will perform the procedures

as volunteers, then charge the patients $1 for the abortion.

[FM123]

24. The Democrats can be clever too.

(article snip from The Nation) Consider the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government employees from private lawsuits arising out of the performance of their jobs. Conservatives love to defend qualified immunity when a cop shoots a black person to death or a CIA agent tortures a suspected terrorist. So here’s an idea: If abortion providers were made federal officials—call them “privacy protectors”—who were deemed to be operating under the authority of the government, they would be protected from the private civil actions Texas now authorizes.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/texas-abortion-fight/

[marie999]

26. Doctors that work within the VA healthcare system can not be sued for malpractice.

A suit has to be brought against the federal government.

[Sogo]

46. Have all abortions performed by VA doctors.

.

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Is the law an attempt to write religious beliefs into law

without calling it religion?

[ShazzieB]

41. IMO, every antiabortion law is an attempt to do that.

When you look closely at the "reasons" people give for opposing abortion, they're all religion based. If you take religion out of the equation entirely, the justifications for banning abortion collapse like a house of cards.

[bucolic_frolic]

43. There you go

I came to the same conclusion. It's an unexplored angle, or at least it's not being talked about, using government to write specific religious beliefs into law.

Of course, how do you separate law from religious foundations? Morality, the public good, ethics and all that entails. But still, this is a very specific belief policy based on religious beliefs of a certain group.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

32. If the Hyde Amendment prevented federalized doctors

From being paid, couldn’t we just pay through a GoFund Me or such site? I’d drop a hundred smackers right the Christ now.

[Blaukraut]

36. What if the doctors were private, but operate on federal property, such as a military installation?

That could work, too. Open clinics on the federal parts of the bases in Texas.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

38. Probably safer for the docs too.

Before long even toddlers will have guns in talibexastan.

[StarfishSaver]

33. I don't think that's what he said

He tweeted that the president should hire doctors under federal authority and send them to Texas. That's very different than deputizing private citizens in Texas.

Link to tweet

I don't believe a president can just deputize any private citizen and make them federal employees at will, except on very limited circumstances.

[stopdiggin]

37. thanks. that seems a lot more - plausible

than some of the scenarios set forth. and yet - still something of a stretch to see such a maneuver actually put into play?

[peppertree]

42. Sure - but the Extreme Court would nix it faster than you can say States' Rights

They get really 'constitutional' when they want to.