Texas abortion opponents are furious someone is taking advantage of their bounty hunter law

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The assholes who wrote this law are pissed in that this case allows the law to be challenged in court. I bet the DOJ , the ACLU, SPLC, Panned Parenthood and others will intervene and the plaintiff will not object to such intervention. This will be fun to watch

Link to tweet

This is just a tiny fraction of the circus Texas Republicans invited with this law, but they're somehow surprised and unhappy about it.

According to the legislative director of Texas Right to Life, which lobbied for the bounty hunter law, "Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives." You don't say! Instead, he continued, "Both cases are self-serving legal stunts, abusing the cause of action created in the Texas Heartbeat Act for their own purposes."

As the law you promoted invites. This was 100% predictable, baked into the very design of the Texas abortion ban. Anyone claiming to be surprised at the quality of the initial efforts to collect the $10,000 bounty is mind-bendingly stupid, or they're lying.

The geniuses over at Texas Right to Life also "believe Braid published his Op-Ed intending to attract imprudent lawsuits." Again: You don't say! What tipped them off? Was it the part where he said in a major newspaper that he had broken a law that requires someone harmed by it to challenge its constitutionality in court? In the same op-ed, he wrote, "I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8."

[lagomorph777]

1. The included content gives no clue as to who is doing exactly what.

And I don't click on posts at Twit.

[Glorfindel]

6. Here's a bit more from the same article

Men in Arkansas and Illinois quickly filed lawsuits against Braid under the new Texas law, which allows anyone, anywhere, to go after anyone who "aids or abets" a woman getting an abortion. Felipe Gomez of Illinois filed his suit as a "Pro-Choice plaintiff" seeking to get the law declared unconstitutional.

Oscar Stilley, who describes himself in his complaint as a "disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer" on home confinement for "utterly fraudulent federal charges," wants that $10,000.

"If this is a free-for-all, and it's $10,000, I want my $10,000," he told The New York Times. "And yes, I do aim to collect."

Braid concluded his op-ed, "I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can't just sit back and watch us return to 1972." With that, and with the inevitable suits against him as a result, the battle against the Texas law enters a new phase.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Here is the link that you can have easily accessed by clicking on tweet

https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/texas-abortion-law-2655069337/

I am amused that you do know how to access articles cited in tweets

[AllaN01Bear]

10. im still scratching my head on how this will pay for roads and stuff and solve their deficits ,

oh wait, they r rs and they dont give a hoot , hoot , hoot.

[lagomorph777]

17. No, I don't support Twit by clicking on posts there.

It's one of the key platforms used by Trump and his henchmen.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Your loss

I prefer to be fully informed

BTW you do know that TFG is banned on Twitter and is in effect suing twitter and a number of social media companies

[orleans]

22. um... so you're not clicking on "twit" b/c you think trump is still on it?

(which he isn't)

do you know how to google?



you could have googled. or gone to alternet to search for the article because you can see where the "twit" link went to in the "twit" that appears on the op.


next time you might want to try looking it up yourself

[SheltieLover]

2. ...

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. After a few days of no lawsuits getting filed...

I started to wonder if the goal wasn't the bounty, but just to scare abortion providers into thinking there was the possibility of the bounty, and that they never had any intention on suing.
I'm so glad people are calling the bluff.

[exboyfil]

9. The doctor basically has unlimited liability as the law is currently written

Everybody in the world can collect that $10K from him plus legal fees. The GOP is truly insane.

[fescuerescue]

4. Well that's clear as can be

Someone's mad because someone did something.

Would be nice if they said what it was.

[lagomorph777]

5. I know right?

Someone did something. No idea who or what.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. It is in the article that properly cited

[fescuerescue]

23. Yes But it's not here

And I don't like chasing down random links.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. That is your issue

I like being informed and have no issue reading material on Twitter

The key concept is that this law was designed to delay judicial review by leaving enforcement of this horrible law to third parties. Here two discredited and disbarred plaintiffs are the two first plaintiffs and that these plaintiffs show why this law is unconstitutional

[fescuerescue]

25. Yes the issues are interesting

It's ashame the OP didn't post it.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. The concept of standing to sue is a key element here

The Texas law ignores the law on standing and gives anyone the right to sue. In order to have standing one must be injured or suffer some injury in order to sue. There are long sections in the treatise on con law and civil/federal procedure on the concept of standing and many cases are dismissed due to a lack of standing. The Texas law purports to eliminate the need for standing. This article is cited elsewhere on this thread but this may help explain the concept https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-republican-abortion-civil-lawsuits/

Texas’ abortion law goes much further. Typically, in tort law, which is used to compensate people who have been injured, a person must have incurred some sort of personal harm in order to sue someone else. That’s the very nature of what a civil court is intended to remedy in such a case, several legal experts told the Tribune. Texas’ new abortion law, however, gives that privilege to anyone.

Abortion opponents, who support the new law, said that the question of standing, or provable harm in order to bring a lawsuit, is moot because the Legislature has granted it to everyone under SB 8.

“They have standing because the Legislature gives it to them,” said John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life. “You don’t have to be personally harmed.”

Some, though, say the law cuts to the very nature of what a civil court is supposed to do: provide a remedy to a harmed party.

“There’s a sort of irreducible minimum that you have to have before you’re in court, just as a matter of how a court is defined,” Coale said. “And this goes way beyond that.”

Under normal legal principles from first year civil pro, torts and Con law, it is clear that the low life disbarred out of state attorney does not have standing. The assholes who wrote this law are mad because this low life disbarred out of state attorney is almost the perfect plaintiff to illustrate why the concept of standing cannot be ignored.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

26. Anti-Choice Groups Are PISSED Texas Law is Being Enforced

[AllaN01Bear]

11. if somone was that close to me yelling in that portable megaphone ,

id shove it in their face .

[UnderThisLaw]

12. The statement

“Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives." is ridiculously hypocritical considering the law is only designed to repress women

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. Texas abortion law a "radical expansion" of who can sue whom

Basic in constitutional law and civil procedure is the question of standing and this law allows someone who does not have any injury in fact to bring a lawsuit which makes it harder for the DOJ to sue to invalidate the law. Here a low life disbarred attorney is in effect the perfect plaintiff to sue in that he clearly has no standing and is a great plaintiff to show how stupid the law is

Link to tweet

Republican lawmakers’ move to ban nearly all abortions in Texas was accomplished through a huge, unprecedented expansion of who can bring a lawsuit against someone else: Under the law, anyone can sue anyone who performs, aids or intends to aid in an abortion — regardless of whether they have a personal stake in the abortion performed.

“It’s wide open,” said David Coal​​e, an appellate lawyer in Texas. “That is a radical expansion of the concept of standing.”

The expansion has far-reaching legal implications, legal experts say, by challenging the very notion of what a court is for and emboldening civilians to enforce law, a duty traditionally left to the government. It’s also a reversal by Texas Republicans on tort law, in which they have typically sought to limit the ability to sue, not expand it.

Legal experts also told The Texas Tribune that the measure is part of an emerging trend in Republican-dominated governments that find it difficult to constitutionally prohibit cultural grievances. Instead, they empower civilians to sue for civil remedies.

Jon Michaels, a professor at UCLA Law, points to Tennessee, where students, teachers and employees of public schools can sue schools if they share a bathroom with a transgender person, as well as Florida, where student athletes can sue their school if it allows a transgender athlete to play.

“It’s a way of back-dooring and winking while constitutional violations are occurring,” Michaels said. “It is compromising democracy."

For those who do not understand how twitter works, he is a link to the article cited https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-republican-abortion-civil-lawsuits/

The best way to attack the premise of this law is to have a low life disbarred out of state attorney being the plaintiff. Under the normal rules of civil procedure, this asshole disbarred attorney does not have standing and to reward such a "person" exposed the essential stupidity of the premise of this law that standing is not necessary to bring a lawsuit

I note that second lawsuit is filed by a pro-choice plaintiff who also want to contest the constitutionality of this stupid law

Link to tweet

[joshcryer]

15. What did they think was going to happen?

Did they not remember how they lost the gay marriage fight?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. Texas Abortion Ban Architect Now Looking To Recriminalize Gay Sex And Overturn Gay Marriage

This is the asshole who drafted the Texas abortion law. This asshole wants to strike down the implied right of privacy by getting Roe overruled which would/could lead to striking down the right to same sex marriage and other rights

Link to tweet

https://www.comicsands.com/jonathan-mitchell-overturn-gay-marriage-2655065691.html

Though Mitchell's brief, also signed by his co-counsel Adam Mortara, dedicates much of its time to the Texas abortion law's defense, it also questions "lawless" pieces of legislation, namely the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which decriminalized gay sex nationwide, and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Though the brief does not say reversing Roe v. Wade would threaten the same-sex marriage ruling, it does say that

""the news is not as good for those who hope to preserve the court-invented rights to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage …
"These 'rights,' like the right to abortion from Roe, are judicial concoctions, and there is no other source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence."

It goes on to add that while the Supreme Court should not necessarily overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, it should consider these two rulings as "lawless" as Roe v. Wade and, by extension, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case."
"But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe."

The brief drew the attention of Melissa Murray, who teaches at New York University's School of Law.

Link to tweet

[Texasgal]

19. They didn't think this would bounty

hunter crap wasn't going to be abused?

DUH!

Just wait, there will be tons more and all this shit will be locked up in the courts for years to come!

IDIOTS!

[Hekate]

20. Please pass the popcorn

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. The suits could be "vehicles" for a constitutional test of Texas' abortion ban.

This law is a travesty and needs to be tested in court

Link to tweet

The first tests of Texas' unprecedented and highly controversial scheme for enforcing a ban on nearly all abortions have come from two non-Texans -- both former lawyers disbarred for alleged misconduct who are effectively inviting courts to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds.

Oscar Stilley, a former Arkansas attorney, brought one of the two civil suits filed Monday in Bexar County District Court against a San Antonio abortion provider who publicly admitted to performing an unlawful procedure. Stilley is in custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on a 15-year sentence for tax evasion and conspiracy, according to the complaint posted on his personal website.

Felipe N. Gomez, an Illinois attorney, brought the other suit; he is currently suspended from the state's bar over accusations of sending harassing and threatening emails, records show.

"In some ways the identity of these first plaintiffs highlights the absurdity of the law," said Kate Shaw, Cardozo School of Law professor and ABC News legal contributor.

"No connection to the issue, no connection to the parties, no connection -- as far as we can tell from the complaints -- to Texas, at all. And yet, they may well have the ability, the way the law is drafted, to go to court and to have the courts actually hear their case," she continued.