General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Fatal Flaw in the Texas Abortion Bill
What pregnancy? Since the bill specifically prevents the woman having an abortion from being charged, or even identified, there will be no evidence that any pregnancy was terminated at all.
Who was pregnant? What evidence is there that anyone was pregnant and had that pregnancy terminated?
Only those who facilitate an abortion can be sued under this law. Not the woman herself. So, the question to be asked in any of these bogus lawsuits will be: "Who had an abortion? What is the evidence that that person had an abortion? Who was that person? When did she become pregnant? What evidence is there for that?" Without that evidence, the facts in question in the lawsuit will not exist, so there is no tort in the first place.
Whoever put this law together was an idiot. Without evidence, there is no basis for a suit, and the evidence must show that a real woman was pregnant for more than 6 weeks and that an abortion was performed on that real woman. First year law students could argue such a case, since no woman will be presented in evidence.
LeftInTX
(24,541 posts)Keep in mind that Louie Gohmert used to be a Texas judge.
We have some real whackadoodle judges in super-red areas. All cases will be filed in those areas. Judges in Texas are elected via partisan elections.
Also the evidence really doesn't need to be there...
Captain Zero
(6,714 posts)Summoning the defendant to the court?
Start by ignoring those. Leave the state.
What can they do?
LeftInTX
(24,541 posts)They get pregnant women to go to clinics. Even recommending an abortion is now illegal, so the audio/video is the evidence. Suits are filed against providers, not women.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)What evidence will there be that any abortion took place? What evidence will there be that the pregnancy existed for more than 6 weeks? No such evidence will be available, since the woman who supposedly had the abortion will not be available to answer those questions, nor will there be any independent evidence regarding those supposed facts.
No evidence? No case. For there to be a case, the plaintiff will have to demonstrate that both of those things are true. Without the testimony of the woman involved, or even her name, no case can be argued in court. It is that simple.
LeftInTX
(24,541 posts)They plan to go undercover and film. Even a doctor recommending an abortion is now illegal.
All they have to do is go undercover as a pregnant woman and enter a clinic. Real pregnant women are willing to do this. The video/audio is the evidence. An abortion does not need to be performed.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Not very bright, it seems to me.
modrepub
(3,467 posts)run it like drug testing. Someone will have to watch them actually pee on the test strip I guess.
Unless the undercover person is a pregnant women they'll fail and the doctor can say "See ya!". If they get an undercover pregnant woman to cooperate, I think she'd actually have to get the abortion to get the charge. Pretty unlikely unless they find a person who becomes disgruntled or has a post abortion change of heart.
This is an untested law full of presumptions. It may be quite unworkable. Same-sex marriage was eventually struck down after many-many years winding its way through the court system. This law will probably suffer the same fate. I consider the SCOTUS decision to be a punt. The lower courts will weigh it and maybe in a decade or so we'll get a ruling on Roe. Not that damage won't be done in the mean time but as I've said elsewhere, maybe "the silent majority" will get their act together and start taking this issue more seriously. The other side has spent decades working on the ground to try and tilt this in their direction.
LeftInTX
(24,541 posts)They have plenty of pregnant women who are willing to do this.
modrepub
(3,467 posts)That say you can't have a business open on Sunday's (blue laws), can't marry someone outside of your race, can't sell a property to a set of races (covenant titles), et cetera. And I'll add there are probably lots of "Larry Flints" in TX willing to challenge the law or disrupt it.
This law hasn't been tested in a court of law. The SCOTUS just said they wouldn't halt it. I expect a lot of brighter minds than myself are going to weigh in over the next decade. This isn't the last work by a long shot.
PortTack
(32,605 posts)There are going to be a ton of new websites pop up with money and means to help women leave the state. They will have to bird dog it out a bit, but this is already a grass roots movement like none other!
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRy6mgJY/
Texin
(2,585 posts)to provide abortion services, including the delivery of a presumed "pregnant" woman at a clinic. What if that Uber or Lyft driver was merely taking a woman for a health screening? And placing the burden of clinicians, facilities, and facilitators to produce "proof" that a woman was not pregnant violates the patients' HIPAA laws. And what if a woman who was seeking an abortion is carried by a driver and dropped several blocks from the clinic's location? Is it therefore the driver's prerogative to guess the passenger's intended destination through some streak of prescience?
This whole thing just reeks to high heaven. This is an abomination. It will backlog the courts with frivolous tort claims that these self-righteous and hypocritical repubs were intent on killing about a decade or so ago! This whole thing gives new meaning to the expression of having "jumped the shark".
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Lonestarblue
(9,874 posts)The dates of the womans last period must also be recorded. Tests will show a pregnancy and an estimate of the number of weeks the woman has been pregnant. If its more than six weeks, she will be denied an abortion. These records are required by the law and not keeping them would require abortion providers either to fake tests to show a pregnancy of six weeks or less or to record the purpose of the visit as something other than abortion. Either way, creating fake medical records seems a good way to lose your license to practice.
Heres where this law is so pernicious. Suppose a woman discovers shes pregnant, but its after she and her partner have split. Partner is now with a new girlfriend. The woman confesses that she is pregnant and asks for help from the former partner, who then tells the new girlfriend. New girlfriend sees an easy way to make $10,000 and rats on the woman, or is just jealous and rats on her for spite. This is just one scenario, but this law opens the doors for all kinds of despicable behavior.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)They have 4 years to find women regretful and/or greedy and/or desperate enough.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)However, without that evidence, there is no case.
keithhs28
(45 posts)The anti-abortion crowd paid Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), in the 1990's, to be a "born again christian" and join their lot.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-jane-roe-idUSKBN22V33D
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)There are plenty of reasons to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic besides pregnancy; trying not to be pregnant is one of the main ones, but PP also provides routine exams and other women's health services. So if a woman just turns up at a PP or other women's health clinic doesn't mean she's there for an abortion. The problem, though, is that whoever gets sued is responsible for their own attorney's fees even if they win, so there isn't much to deter frivolous claims.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)It is a very poorly designed law, and is doomed to fail to do what it purports to do. Whether that poor wording was intentional or simply due to incompetence on the part of those who wrote the bill, it remains as what it is - a weak bill that is full of reasons it will not lead to successful lawsuits.
I suspect it will end up being found to be unconstitutional anyhow, but it is really useless as a law.
unblock
(51,973 posts)Though abortion providers may certainly decide the Texas law is unconstitutional and refuse to abide by it.
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)I see this as more of a means of harassment against little people without the means to defend themselves; the harassers will go for low-hanging fruit that doesn't require them to seriously litigate. There will, of course, be lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits (if the law survives), and they will pursue only those cases that can be resolved quickly and easily; $10K isn't enough money to make a for-real lawsuit worthwhile. Even though they can recover attorneys' fees, their target would have to be one with deep enough pockets for that recovery to be realistic. And entities with deep pockets have their own lawyers. I could see Planned Parenthood defending these lawsuits fiercely and effectively, even in a state with judges like Louie Gohmert.
paleotn
(17,778 posts)A back door ban by trying to make it far too expensive for service providers to offer abortion services. I guess even with their Trump appointed "ringers" on the court they're still afraid to go for the jugular and design a case to overturn Roe. So they're still up to this end run bullshit.
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)Bottom-feeding lawyers will specialize in these cases, and they'll go after people and entities that can't afford to defend themselves. Planned Parenthood, however, has national resources and I expect them to fight back, hard.
relayerbob
(6,508 posts)Who needs that?
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Evidence is always at the core of such lawsuits. Without it, there is no way to win.
A- yes; b- my wife is an attorney; c- you seem to be missing the point; d- try to understand sarcasm
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)And that's a fact.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)Winning $10,000 abortion bounties is not the goal of the law. The goal was to dissuade providers from offering abortions.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)Other states are watching, and figuring out how to get the kinks out.
no_hypocrisy
(45,770 posts)paleotn
(17,778 posts)PortTack
(32,605 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)HIPAA doesn't cover litigation
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Those were my childhood years. Today, they seem like the Dark Ages to me. I was in high school between 1959 and 1963, and was horrified, even then, at the heavy influence the Roman Catholic Church had on women, marriage and sexuality. At that time, they led the way to horrid laws that were all based on the "Be fruitful and multiply" nonsense from Genesis 1:28.
In my high school years in California condoms were only sold by pharmacists, carried labels that read "For the Prevention of Disease Only," and were illegal to sell to anyone unmarried and under 21 years of age. Unmarried women could not be fitted with diaphragms at any age. Both of those laws were promulgated by the RCC, which held sway over the CA state legislature.
When I went off to college in 1963, I discovered that the student health center there simply flouted that law and kept a very large fishbowl full of condoms in the waiting room at the clinic. When the birth control pill was available, it was restricted to women over the age of 21. The same student health center did not honor that law, either.
The article you posted is horrifying, but unsurprising. It represents the paternalistic attitudes toward women and reproduction that were so common at that time.
Now, it seems some places are trying to go back in time. That's horrifying, too.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Since the woman in question isnt being charged with a crime, they can simply put her on the stand and ask her the question. There is no need for a CSI crime lab.
The gal would have 3 bad choices; No 5th amendment protection here.
1 refuse to answer and face contempt of court
2 perjury herself and deny the pregnancy.
3 acknowledge the pregnancy.
PortTack
(32,605 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)She's a witness.
Mad_Machine76
(24,353 posts)It sounds scarier than it seems like it would work in practice. Although the law seems to get around people being able to sue to block the law because it deputizes private citizens to sue, it seems basically toothless unless you get the courts involved to facilitate the lawsuit, award damages, etc. Also, as others have pointed out, how do private citizens get access to the protected health information of others?
Igel
(35,191 posts)It's possible for somebody to be tried in federal court on criminal offenses and not see the evidence, or see very carefully vetted evidence. "National security" and all that.
At least grand jury evidence used in court is usually public--but, again, sometimes names are withheld. Why? To protect the innocent and out of privacy concerns. Again, criminal cases.
No clue if similar kinds of rules apply to civil suits.
As for evidence, all you have to do is look at medical waste, get some employee to testify that X happened. Who did it happen to? Don't know that matters. (No, literally, I don't know if it matters. It might, and it's not really a question of opinion or fancy.)
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Texas legislators recognized that they could not make this a criminal thing, so they tried an "end around" move by making it a civil issue and leaving it up to individuals to file suits. It is a failed law that I expect to be blocked by the courts. Vigilantism is not due process in any way, and that's what this law creates. It will not stand.
drmeow
(4,995 posts)is for the cost of defending themselves (against any claims whether legitimate or not) will put clinics out of business
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)That's not the role that state laws should take. It is very bad law, and will not stand, I believe.
sanatanadharma
(3,639 posts)The law creates two classes of citizens with disparate rights and unequal protection.
The law establishes two different protections under the law, two different classes of citizens.
One class is denied the right of redress by collecting court costs upon winning the lawsuit, a right granted to the other class.
The same action, winning the case, results in two different outcomes as prejudged, under the cover of law, depending upon the status of the claimant/ defendant.
Overturning the law should be a slam-dunk. Women are a protected class of citizens, guaranteed full and equal protection under the law.
Imagine a similar 'heads I win, tails you lose' law targeting black Americans.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)I do not see how the law can stand after any serious federal judicial scrutiny. I have no doubt that filings are being prepared by several organizations.
Really, I see this law as a bid by Texas Republican legislators to help ensure the votes of the Christian Right in the next election. Nothing more than that. They may well get a surprise, though.
paleotn
(17,778 posts)bucolic_frolic
(42,651 posts)Can't go around revealing private medical information, name, time, procedure, etc.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)If required by subpoena. There are reporting requirements and other protections involved, but HIPPA does not block medical records from being used in court.
Texin
(2,585 posts)(and all five of the Supreme Court justices) you will see that a great many of them are Roman Catholic. Is that not one specific religious group trying to enforce their religious beliefs/tenets onto the majority of other citizens? Is that NOT a violation of the Constitution itself?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and once they've identified them, go from there on collecting information.
But all this might put so much pressure on the clinics that they just close to everyone.
kcr
(15,300 posts)The law has worked pretty much as intended, as abortion is now almost non-existent in Texas. It may eventually get smacked down, but likely not before SCOTUS overturns Roe, which is why they didn't bother to block the law, to begin with.
Vinca
(50,168 posts)bills anyway. It's Texas. Surely there's a friendly judge just waiting for the bounty hunters to show up. And, the way the law is written, all legal fees get billed to the accused.
twin_ghost
(435 posts)It is to stop people from performing abortions. If a person that perform abortions is sued it will cost them huge attorney fees to defend themselves in court. Unless they get a billionaire to bank roll them they can't afford to take a chance on their personal wealth.
PortTack
(32,605 posts)bluestarone
(16,720 posts)WHY didn't the SC see exactly what you're saying? (tells me, THEY (THE ones voted in the majority) were on a mission?) WE know what they want NOW!
crickets
(25,896 posts)Red Mountain
(1,704 posts)Is to induce fear, sow confusion and maybe just maybe prevent an abortion as a result.
Goal seems to be control and compliance.