Re: the Texas abortion law...strategies on how to fight?

[IowaGuy]

Yeah, I get why everybody is jumping up and down with their hair on fire about this, justifiably so.
But bottom line, we are where we are at and just saying fight harder isn't helping much. What are some concrete ideas on what can be done?
I was thinking any suit brought should be countered with a lawsuit alleging possession of stolen property. Your medical records belong to you and can only be accessed by the people you deem appropriate and only for the uses you identify (HIPAA). Anybody bringing such a suit would have to identify how they legally obtained such information. This law also does not in anyway circumvent Roe Vs Wade's determination of a constitutional right to privacy. Bringing such an action in a court of law clearly would violate that. It seems conspiracy charges for accepting such obviously stolen info for the purposes of personal financial gain while violating a constitutional right to privacy would be an easy case to bring, both in Civil and criminal courts. Such legal liability would easily be greater than the 10,000 buck payout people think they would get.
Any thoughts on this idea or any others that could be used to hit back at these assholes?

[Johonny]

1. Boycott companies based in Texas.

Economically crush them. The GOP only listen to money men. Hurt them economically. Which I assume will happen any way. There's no way companies can compete when educated women won't come and work in your state.

[hamsterjill]

2. No ideas myself, but there are greater minds.

I hope someone can come up with something to beat the freaking Republicans at their own game. There's got to be a loophole in this somewhere.

If I'm understanding the "bounty" correctly, and that's questionable because I've not seen anything that really sets out the boundaries for it - - if someone turns in a woman, that someone must pay to sue (themselves), and they only get the $10,000 if they win the lawsuit. I'm not clear whether some of the crazy whacko religious groups would give someone money to finance a lawsuit. We won't know, of course, until this is actually tested.

But I'm anxious to hear if DU'ers have ideas. We definitely need to be thinking outside of the box.

[LeftInTX]

5. I read that the lawsuits are free. No court costs

No attorney fees.

[hamsterjill]

9. I don't think they thought this through.

I haven't seen anything that really clarifies the way this is supposed to work. I think they are still working it out. But it doesn't seem right (ha ha...I realize what I just said because obviously NONE of this is "right&quot that someone can sue another person without having to file a lawsuit with court fees, etc.

If I am a petitioner in a divorce case stuck in a court and some idiot is hanging up the docket with a tattle tale lawsuit, I'm not going to be too happy. I'm going to be doubly unhappy if *I* had to pay court fees and he/she did not.

The courts are already operating behind because of COVID.

But again, none of this is going to be answered until it is challenged unfortunately.

[IowaGuy]

7. It would seem to me anybody that participated in the scheme to file a lawsuit

could easily be roped into conspiracy charges, aiding and abetting with the transmission of stolen property, etc. That is a lot of legal liability for a 10,000 buck payout, and of course the lawyers will always get their cut no matter what. Nobody but lawyers are going to get rich off of this....it just seems to me if the Christian Taliban types suddenly realize they could get threatened with financial destruction if they engage in this nonsense they'll slink away like all bullies do.

[hamsterjill]

10. Will they get a 1099-MISC income form

And have to pay taxes on the $10,000?

See, all questions that have not been answered.

[vanlassie]

3. I was just looking at a site that came up on my Facebook page.

It’s for tile. I’m in the market, and FB knows this. Anyway I noticed the company is in Texas. I sent them a message: “I was interested in your products but I don’t do business with Texas anymore. Sorry.”

[sanatanadharma]

14. And that is how it is done...

Enough citizen messages to many just-one small Texas company at a time saying,"Gee. I am sorry but I can't do business with Texas" could be an expression of a national 'denial of service' attack upon the Texas economy.

Start with your Facebook, Instagram, etc advertisers.
Letters to editors, comments at Travel-to-city, Hotels-dot-tex, Yelp etc add-up to many eyes looking at their mirror.

[qazplm135]

4. yeah

vote.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. Depends on your goal.

[Arazi]

8. Your medical records aren't shielded during litigation. They'll be released to court

As to concrete suggestions I've heard of two from lawyers.

1. Biden should deputize all abortion providers and related staff as federal agents. This provides them qualified immunity and they can't be sued.

2. Flood the TX courts with lawsuits. There's no penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit with this law (the writers got overzealous and wanted every last report possible). People unrelated to anyone can file suit, even if you don't live in TX. Use that loophole and bog the court down so much it becomes impossible to process that many suits

[hamsterjill]

11. I like it.

If someone files suit against a woman for having an abortion, and that woman proves she did not. Can she then turn around and sue the dipstick for defamation of character? That would add more clog to the courts.

[Arazi]

13. The women aren't being sued. Anyone who helped her get an abortion gets sued

So not just the clinic and staff but the friend, pastor, Uber driver etc are all liable. Since there's no penalty to file a suit - even if it's a lie or vindictive or true or frivolous - there will be people who do this simply to destroy innocents who have nothing to do with any abortion.

Therefore this attorney (Eli Mystal) says with that being the case, lawsuits should flood the zone against Abbot, Paxton, every Republican official down to the local dogcatcher. Bog it down so no lawsuits can flow

[hamsterjill]

15. No, I think the woman can be sued, as well.

I understand the issue with anyone "helping someone" to obtain an abortion, but I think there is a provision where the woman herself can be sued. Again, I believe it will take a test case or cases to actually define the parameters of this stupid law.

I'm for doing anything that messes with the assholes who got this bill passed. Bog away.

[IowaGuy]

17. And each and every person sued, could countersue and allege that the basis of the original

lawsuit was fraudulently and illegally obtained information.

[Arazi]

18. The more the merrier

[IowaGuy]

19. Yup!!

[IowaGuy]

20. Even if the woman isn't being sued, if they allege something to be true in court which isn't

then their own testimony and court record is exhibit # 1 in a defamation suit.

[IowaGuy]

12. No. 2 is a good idea

As for no. 1...I agree, once litigation is brought the medical records are not shielded, however in order to bring the litigation the records would have had to been accessed illegally or used in an illegal manner, this is where the legal liability would exist for the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit. They can not know what they purport to be true unless they did commit a violation of HIPAA or received the info from somebody who violated HIPAA

[hamsterjill]

16. I love this!

How could they know without having seen a woman's medical records, and for them to have seen those records is a violation of HIPPA unless the woman has given her consent.

This has some merit, I think.

[twin_ghost]

21. No medical records belong to the Doctor or clinic.

Your medical records belong to you

Anyone can file a lawsuit and subpoena medical records. HIPAA will not stop that either.

When they start suing medical staff they will have to hire high priced civil attorneys to protect themselves or they can ignore the lawsuit and then lose by default.

[IowaGuy]

22. Here is some clarification on that...

[link:https://www.hipaaguide.net/hipaa-subpoena-for-medical-records/#:~:text=A%20HIPAA%20subpoena%20for%20medical%20records%20is%20an,case%20or%20to%20compel%20an%20individual%20to%20testify.|

2. Subpoenas issued by attorneys or legal discovery requests
If a valid subpoena is signed by an attorney or a court clerk, HIPAA permits the disclosure of medical records if one of the following three conditions is met:

A written statement and accompanying documentation are received from the person issuing the subpoena demonstrating a good faith attempt was made to provide written notice of the subpoena to the patient or his or her legal representative; the notice included sufficient information to inform the patient that they have the right to object to the subpoena; the time for objecting the subpoena has passed and the patient did not object to the subpoena or an objection was satisfactorily resolved by the court.
A written statement and accompanying documentation are received from the person issuing the subpoena demonstrating all parties to the lawsuit have agreed to a qualified protective order to maintain the confidentiality of the supplied information or that such an order has been requested. The qualified protective order limits the use of the information solely to the lawsuit and requires all information to be destroyed or returned when the lawsuit ends.
The covered entity makes reasonable efforts to notify the patient, stating a response is required by law, and the patient is informed of his/her right to object to the disclosure of their PHI and the patient fails to notify the covered entity that the subpoena has been set aside before the deadline for responding. The covered entity can also object to the subpoena.
A valid HIPAA authorization is obtained from the patient authorizing the covered entity to release his/her medical records and comply with the subpoena. In such cases, the information disclosed must still be limited to the information specifically requested in the subpoena.
Details of these requirements can be found in Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, sections 164.512(c)(1)(ii); (e)(1)(iii)-(vi).

[vanlassie]

23. The HIPPA penalties will neutralize the bounty payment.