Abortion Is Finally Illegal -- And I Can't Wait To Sue

[skews13]

Texas Abortion Law Takes Effect Pending Supreme Court Action

The Supreme Court didn’t act on a request to block the law, which bars the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy, making it the most restrictive abortion law in effect in the U.S.

www.wsj.com

"A new Texas abortion law that bars the procedure after approximately six weeks of pregnancy took effect Wednesday, after the Supreme Court didn’t act on an emergency request by clinics and abortion-rights advocates to block it. When the court said nothing by midnight, the ban officially went into force, making it the most restrictive abortion law in effect in the U.S. The state law dictates that a physician can’t knowingly perform an abortion if there is a detectable fetal heartbeat after 6 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion-rights advocates typically challenge new restrictions before they go into effect by suing the government officials -- but lawmakers devised a measure that shifts enforcement from the state to private parties. Under the new law private parties can file civil lawsuits against any person who allegedly performs or aids a banned abortion, or who intends to do so. Under the law, a successful suit entitles the plaintiff to collect at least $10,000 in damages per abortion challenged."

One of the many good things about living in Texas is now one is able to sue any whore whom they think had an abortion, along with the doctor that helped that whore; the receptionist at the clinic -- and even the person who gave the whore a ride to the clinic -- if you want, you can sue all of them.. In fact, there are already lawsuits in the works to sue..For example, there is a lawyer in Collin County, Tx who donated to abortion rights groups; now that person is getting sued...and there is this other lawyer who represents women who were impregnated from "sexual assault" and are trying to get abortions -- not so fast...they are getting sued too....At $10,000 per abortion challenge, one can make a pretty penny or at least put these folks who are part of this abortion industry out of business and hopefully in jail -- because that is what freedom is all about.

'put these folks who are part of this abortion industry out of business and hopefully in jail -- because that is what freedom is all about.'



You can't make this shit up.

 

[skews13]

"Court costs" doesn't include legal fees. They would still have to pony up the $$$ to sue to the doctors. THis is a civil case, plaintiff will have to prepare a complaint, have evidence, depositions .... It's going to exceed $10,000 before they walk in the courthouse door. If this gets used, it's going to be used by well funded Right to Life groups, not individuals.

Suing is one thing

Collecting is another

 

[Coyote]

Pathetic excuses. Par for the course with you. Adoption is a very viable alternative. But you can’t stand ANY option except murder the baby. Note how the left NEVER mentions the father’s rights....

What risks does the father take? Child birth and pregnancy has a higher risk of complications and mortality than abortion. The costs are much higher both for prenatal care,child birth, post natal care and loss of job (since you guys don’t believe in paid maternity leave) or having to drop out of school to care for a baby. It isn’t the fathers body involved, he has no rights over her body.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And once Roe is overturned or otherwise nullified, we’ll hear nothing from the right again about ‘abortion.’

Wait'll it starts getting treated like a violent crime at the state level.

You quislings will really blow your stack then, I'll bet.

Moments like these are why you get your people positioned and have legislation ready to be introduced.

But you don't know anything about that, do you, señor keyboard jockey? Not your pay grade? Heh heh...

 

[Rawley]

Suing is one thing

Collecting is another

Seems the goal might be to scare the hell out of the abortion doctors, or at least drive their medical malpractice insurance premiums through the roof.

 

[JLW]

Supreme Court by 5-4 vote rules Texas may enforce its six-week abortion ban

The Supreme Court, led by Trump's three appointees, votes to clear the way for Texas to prohibit most abortions. It is the first time since 1973 that a state law banning most abortions has become law.

www.latimes.com

Marc Hearron, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the law “creates a vigilante scheme” that will encourage many people to file lawsuits against abortion providers as well as those who “aid or abet” them. They are entitled to $10,000 in damages and have their court costs paid by the abortion provider if they win. However, they pay no court costs if they lose, he noted.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, what this law does is create a nation of snitches. If you have a teenage daughter and belong to a church or a live in a small town you had better be careful what you say. Look over your shoulder, someone may be looking to cash in on your private affairs.

What this law does is lay bare, the Republican hypocrisy on freedom and privacy. No freedom or privacy for you if you don’t believe as they do.

 

[Coyote]

Wait'll it starts getting treated like a violent crime at the state level.

You quislings will really blow your stack then, I'll bet.

Moments like these are why you get your people positioned and have legislation ready to be introduced.

But you don't know anything about that, do you, señor keyboard jockey? Heh heh...

How authoritarian.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Court costs" doesn't include legal fees. They would still have to pony up the $$$ to hire lawyers to sue the doctors. THis is a civil case, plaintiff will have to prepare a complaint, have evidence, depositions .... It's going to exceed $10,000 before they walk in the courthouse door. If this gets used, it's going to be used by well funded Right to Life groups, not individuals.

It will be used by individuals who are funded by activist groups and crowd sourcing.

 

[Coyote]

Regardless of your stance on abortion, what this law does is create a nation of snitches. If you have a teenage daughter and belong to a church or a live in a small town you had better be careful what you say. Look over your shoulder, someone may be looking to cash in on your private affairs.

All this just lays bare, the Republican hypocrisy on freedom and privacy. No freedom or privacy for you if you don’t believe as they do.

Not to mention the huge hypocrisy of anti Big Government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

How authoritarian.

I'm likely one of the least authoritarian people on this board.

And pretty much everyone knows that. In fact, I'd eagerly put my posting history up against yours (or any of your friends) in that regard any day of the week, if you'd like.

You're speaking from emotion. It's expected. It's okay. I get it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Conservatives truly are scumbags – with one law they’ve managed to both violate a woman’s right to privacy and disadvantage the poor.

Pisses you have so many blacks will live now.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Absolutely. When Pubs speak and lecture others on freedom, remember they speak with forked tongue.

Freedom is scary, huh.

Few people even understand the concept, to be honest.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Texas got this one wrong.

First off, I don't see how they can, legally, say that a total stranger has any right to sue someone they don't even know, for an act that doesn't involve them in any shape or form. Why don't we pass laws that say if I see someone drinking and driving, or taking drugs, or speeding, or breaking any number of laws, that we are entitled to sue them.

I just don't see this facet of the law as ethical or legal. Expect appeals to be filed from here to eternity.

 

[JLW]

Freedom is scary, huh.

Few people even understand the concept, to be honest.

I’ll tell what freedom is not. Freedom is not found in a law that turns your neighbors into snitches if they disagree with your most private of decisions.

 

[Flash]

God bless Texas. The children can live.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law breaks the precedent on restrictive abortion laws that the High Court has set in the past. The court usually issues an injunction while these lawsuits work their way through the system.

If by "usually" you mean "once in a while, when a previous ruling is under appeal", then you're right.
There - are- no rulings here.
Thus, my point stands.

 

[skews13]

Texas got this one wrong.

First off, I don't see how they can, legally, say that a total stranger has any right to sue someone they don't even know, for an act that doesn't involve them in any shape or format. Why don't we pass laws that say if I see someone drinking and driving, or taking drugs, or speeding, or breaking any number of laws, that we are entitled to sue them.

I just don't see this facet of the law as ethical or legal. Expect appeals to be filed from here to eternity.

They can't. It goes against the very premise of tort law. No plaintiff in any case can show standing, much less damages, by proving a prima facie case.

 

[Coyote]

I'm am likely one of the least authoritarian people on this board.

And pretty much everyone knows that. In fact, I'd eagerly put my posting history up against yours (or any of your friends) in that regard any day of the week, if you'd like.

You're speaking from emotion. It's expected. It's okay. I get it.

The post I replied to doesn’t support your claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s neither the role nor responsibility of government to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.

Hence the authoritarian right and big government conservatives.

Rightists need to understand that there’s far more to ‘limited government’ than tax cuts that explode the debt and reckless, irresponsible, unwarranted deregulation.

Repeating the same idiotic lie doesn't make it true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

lantern2814

So you oppose the RIGHT of innocent human beings to LIFE

Wrong.

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus possesses no ‘rights’; the protected liberties of the woman are paramount:

‘… an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

www.law.cornell.edu