The new Texas anti-choice/snitch bounty law is a travesty. One thing we can do right now is raise tons of money for the Texas Democratic party. If it raises millions of dollars over the next few weeks, media and politicians will take notice.
And the 2022 governor’s race is winnable — no joke. Let’s do this.
Texas Democratic Party
Update: Thought I should raise the goal to at least the amount of a Texas snitch bonus.
bucachon
Proposal: we set up a fund to pay for abortions in Texas. We get a thousand(s) to give 1 dollar. Then we sue ourselves under the new law. All 1,000(s) of us. We flood the Texas court system with 1,000s of cases and shut it down.
Snarki, child of Loki
I can think of “one weird trick” that can raise $10,000 at a pop.
Woodrow/asim
@bucachon: there are already dozens of groups, already working in TX to fund and support abortions as well as fight these laws. I posted about them yesterday.
Unique uid
I don’t know a lot about this law, but was thinking this morning (always dangerous): couldn’t a pregnant woman in Texas get on the phone and schedule an abortion, then go fill up her gas tank. Then file $10000 suits against Verizon, Comcast marathon, etc. maybe stop by a gun store and pick up a shotgun for protection. Sue them too. Electric company, car manufacturer also seem to be assisting.
Seems like within a weeks time, the deep pocket corporations would be looking at billions of charges and decide to turn off Texas until they fix the situation?
Is there any polling on the issue?
Danton
Question for legal minds: if a federal agency is a vendor for a low-cost “morning after” pill to women in Texas, can Texas do anything about it?
Just Chuck
Since all good law-abiding Texas women will want to establish a timeline of their reproductive cycles as exculpatory evidence, perhaps they should bag up and send every used pad and tampon to Gov. Abbot’s office .
neldob
I have been giving the Texas Dems a monthly since their valiant work for voting rights and will give them another chunk of change to help fight this attack on women, and all their other attacks on everyone who is not them.
pat
What are the chances the repubs go after “baby killers” in the next election.
PPCLI
High-profile Texas Republicans like Cruz and Abbot have been remarkably silent about the Supreme Court decision. No victory laps, efforts to change the subject. The era of being able to demagogue about abortion while getting protected by the SCOTUS from the consequences of their legislation are over.
Of course, they knew this day would come, but they clearly expected it wouldn’t come before the 2022 midterms elections.
Woodrow/asim
And I usually see something regurgitated from the online Anti-Abortion folx. So far, it’s mostly been press releases+the “we’re looking at similar laws” business.
Not sure if this is all an effort to bring this as under the radar as possible, yet it is outside the norm, in a lot of ways.
wenchacha
@Just Chuck: I concur.
gvg
From what I understand, I would think the medical malpractice insurers could either raise the rates on almost all doctors in Texas or refuse to insure in Texas. Even say a cancer doctor can inadvertantly cause a fetus to be endangered. This means almost anybody in medicine, including nurses, possibly even clerks can be sued. I honestly don’t see how insurance companies can operate with so much uncertainty. If insurance companies act together because they come to that conclusion, they could shut down almost all medical care in texas…..which ought to get everyones attention.
If a lot of doctors started leaving, it would also make a point.
It just seems like this law is too big for the “problem”
Henry Olsen had an op ed in the post a few days ago indicating that he thought the Supreme Court couldn’t stay this law because something about it didn’t have a government agency as enforcement, it was privatized law enforcement. He didn’t like the law, but was explaining a legal reason. If so, that might have been intentional on the part of the designers, however it seems even more problematic to me. I don’t want private justice.
I think their might be ways to kill this law that don’t even have to do with women’s rights. Not sure though, I really an not a lawyer.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Just Chuck: no tampaxation without representation
Kent
For the legal minds here. How rigorous are the standards of proof and what procedures do vigilante abortion enforcers need to follow to get evidence? Do they need search warrants? Can they use information provided anonymously? Since these are civil cases, I assume the standards of proof and evidence are different than for criminals cases?
Not that I’m trying to give anyone ideas, but what would stop people from collecting the names of young female GOP legislators as well as any legislators and high-level GOP/evangelical activists with daughters of child bearing age and then doing the following:
The mind boggles at the potential for abuse here.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@pat: drs. gunn & tiller are proof they already have
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Unique uid: i like that idea
you can already sue yourself in the case if a single car accident where insurance won’t cover, so why can’t you sue over what you yourself have been allowed to do
Citizen Alan
@gvg:
The more I think about the implications of this law, the more horrified I become. Do 4th Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure apply to a private individual deputized under this law?
Kent
@Unique uid: I think the flaw with your idea is that the woman would then have to actually go through with the abortion somewhere in Texas. Which seems problematic. If she doesn’t actually get an illegal abortion then all those ancillary businesses didn’t actually aid and abet an illegal abortion. Just thinking about an abortion isn’t illegal, having the abortion is what is illegal.
Citizen Alan
@Kent:
Which raises another evidentiary questions. If this is purely a civil matter, then the standard is preponderance of the evidence. That is, a woman need not have actually had an abortion if the accuser can persuade a jury that she “more likely than not” had one. So in our weird contrived fact pattern, if a woman says she had an abortion, the burden would shift to the people she’s suing to say she hadn’t!
Feathers
All the Texas CEOs have been quiet. Of course, it is also the Labor Day weekend, so we’ll give them until next week. But… I’m just imagining people filing bounty lawsuits against co-workers. Do they not realize what a nightmare this is? How the fvck does HR handle that?
Kent
@Citizen Alan: Sure, but any good lawyer could depose such a self-witness and destroy her if she is faking it, and probably have her brought up on perjury charges. And companies like AT&T have very good lawyers
What you would need to do is create a very big paper trail of people in Texas who helped you get an abortion in New Mexico or Colorado and then actually go have the abortion for which you will then have proof that it happened.
japa21
Okay, a couple thoughts and questions.
If a woman is not pregnant she cannot get an abortion. Therefore, the male that impregnated her facilitated her getting an abortion. Thus, that male should also be able to get sued.
Basically, the law is saying, if you see someone doing something illegal or someone who facilitates someone doing something illegal, you can sue that person. Yes, it specifies abortion, but doesn’t it extend to other things, such as speeding (sue the car manufacturer), illegal use of firearms (sun the manufacturer), etc. ?
I believe I read that the one person who can’t be sued is the woman who gets the abortion. Is that correct? What is the rationale for that?
ETA: IANAL, but my understanding is that to sue someone, a person usually has to show some sort of harm to self. What is the harm to me that justifies my suing a Uber driver?
Brantl
@Just Chuck: WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!
Omnes Omnibus
Good god, this thread looks like a transcript of a bunch of first semester 1Ls getting over caffeinated.
japa21
Another thing that should be questioned is that, except in cases of artificial or in-vitro insemination, there is virtually no way to determine the actual date of conception. The usual guideline is 11-21 days after the first day of the last period. But if a woman has irregular periods, that becomes even more difficult.
So what is being used as the legal definition in this case?
japa21
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well, I am probably over caffeinated.
Brantl
Nope the law allows to sue over the intention, not just the act.
J R in WV
@Kent:
OK, now you, TX female having received abortion meds in the mail, prove you didn’t take those meds, didn’t have any other medical procedure related to pregnancy, etc. Good luck with that!
Proving a negative is logically impossible, which is why our justice system operates on the standard that everyone starts their trial presumed innocent and the prosecution must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”…
One more reason this bill isn’t going to pass a constitutional test. It appears to assume guilt and ask the accused to prove their innocence. You go, Texas legislature.
Brantl
What we need to do, I think is build up some money, for the absolute 1st person who gets sued under this statute, who is completely innocent, to file for damages from a frivolous lawsuit. I think we should also start lobbying for a ballot proposal of anti-SLAPP legislation in Texas.
J R in WV
@japa21:
Existence of a fetal “heartbeat”…
Anoniminous
@J R in WV:
The law in the US is whatever five Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court says it is.
Ask an elderly Japanese citizen how their Rights were protected in 1942.
cwmoss
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose: lawyer here. You don’t sue yourself, you sue your insurer under the uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage of your policy. It’s a breach of contract case captioned “You v. Evil Casualty Insurance Company”.
Having said that, it looks like there are a million ways this insane TX statute can/will disrupt things, and all of them serve the lawless ends of the christian fascists, including things like undermining the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, which requires the courts of one state to enforce orders and judgments of another state. An example of such an order would be a $10k judgment entered in TX against a resident of another state. Would the court in Oregon (where I live) enforce a TX judgment against me if I donate money for the purpose of “aiding and abetting” an abortion in TX? This sort of thing is how a “stable” nation of laws begins to unravel. I think this law is broader and more insidious than is being discussed in the articles I’ve seen so far.
Woodrow/asim
It is a little much, yeah.
Gang — there’s some write-ups out there on this law, most of which sum up as “no-one’s sure what the damn limits are, here, and it’s designed in part to do what it just did — escape judicial scrutiny.” (I’m looking for my comment yesterday that gave links on this…)
So, we can armchair here, yet I doubt we’ll get to a conclusion/approach that matches the reality of this horror-show, and it’s impacts. As uninspiring as it might seem, this is why supporting/boosting the people on the ground, doing Reproductive work, in TX is so critical. I can promise they, and their lawyers, have thought thru a lot more of this than we Jonny/Jane-Come-Latelys have :)
gene108
@gvg:
This doesn’t make sense to me.
Who enforces payment of the $10k bounty, if government is not involved?
The courts will be involved deciding who violated the law, and enforcing the payment of the bounty. Law enforcement may get involved to enforce payment. Maybe other agencies will be involved with regards to laws on medical procedures.
I don’t see how the government can stay out of enforcing this law.
Kent
@Brantl: It would seem like the best way to create a test case in the courts would be if some friendly attorney sued someone who had or helped with an actual abortion where they don’t actually plan to collect (or if they do collect, they give the money back) so that there is an actual case that can then be appealed. That way you can create a test case on your own terms for best chance of getting an appeal.
Ksmiami
@gvg: kill the bounty hunters in self defense? It is a work around I guess.
Kent
@Ksmiami: Does Texas have a stand-your-ground law?
RaflW
@Danton: I think the TX GOP is about to nuke the pills, too. Anyone have info on SB 4?
Bluegirlfromwyo
@Omnes Omnibus: Proof positive of how horrible and problematic the law is.
RaflW
@japa21: “So what is being used as the legal definition in this case?”
Whatever a Republican judge simply decides to impose? There is so much that is pernicious in this law, but last night as I was restless I did wonder this.
Six weeks was chosen because it is unlcear enough based on a missed period when the pregnancy started, so that it shuts down all TX providers out of fear of getting sued.
OTOH, it is long enough that ‘good’ GOP women of means can stock up on morning after pills from out of state without running afoul.
Ksmiami
@Kent: yes if I feel threatened I can use a gun
zhena gogolia
@Woodrow/asim:
Right.
As I mentioned the other day, this smacks of being modeled on the Russian homosexual propaganda law, in its vagueness and its ability to ensnare all sorts of people. But mainly its aim to repress people’s expression of their sexuality.
FelonyGovt
@cwmoss: (Another lawyer here) That’s an excellent point. Generally enforcing a sister state civil judgment is a matter of filling out some forms and maybe a quick court appearance. It’s questionable whether Oregon, or California where I live, would want to enforce these $10K Texas bounty hunter judgments.
RaflW
@cwmoss: Accompanying your point is that the creation of an informant culture is incredibly corrosive. Much, of course, was bad in the old Eastern Bloc dictatorships. But the isolation, lack of trust and mutuality engendered by the ‘anyone can turn you in, anyone might be listening thru the mail slot’ culture was a central, and effective way of limiting the power of citizens to organize to rise up.
I may get zapped for misunderstanding Stalinism, but isn’t an informant class part of it?? Jebus.
oldster
On the topic of taking positive action in the face of a 360 degree shitstorm of adversity:
I just heard from my older brother that he will be volunteering to help out the Afghan immigrants arriving in New Mexico. He has no special skills — not an MD or a linguist — but he can carry water and hew wood, and he can make their lives easier and make their welcome warmer.
He’s retired now and has time to do it, but I am still proud of him for doing concrete, positive things to make the world a better place.
I told him that I am contributing by hunching over a screen and doomscrolling 24/7. I don’t think he’s impressed. He thinks I may have misheard Mr. Rogers — apparently he did not say “look for the helpless.”
Thanks to you people for making a difference via fund-raising and crowd-sourcing. You are the helpers.
Ksmiami
@Omnes Omnibus: can you maybe not mock the women who are now endangered by thugs in Texas? Okthxbai. That’s where this law is headed.
zhena gogolia
@Ksmiami:
Where did he do that?
zhena gogolia
@RaflW:
Yes, and that persists in Putin’s Russia. See my comment 42.
Ksmiami
@zhena gogolia: See comment 24…
scav
I’m stuck with this tune
Oh some wish to live in the Land of Snitches, Freedom there is not for Bitches
Sue away! Sue away! Sue away! It’s Texas-land.
Only sometimes it morphs into Incel-land. Or Texas-ban.
Librarian
@RaflW: Yup. Just google “Pavlik Morozov.”
RaflW
@zhena gogolia: BTW and mostly off topic, I recently read Swimming in the Dark by Tomasz Jedrowski. It’s set in the very waning days of Poland’s communist era, and follows a recent college grad as he discovers his sexuality and tries to negotiate life in a gay-repressive regime.
It may sound grim, but it’s beautifully written and while it was not a terribly happy book, it is in its way liberatory. It’s an expensive book for its slim size (191 carefully crafted pages), but if it can be found in your library system, and sounds appealing to any of you, add it to your reading list!
zhena gogolia
@Ksmiami: I saw it. It was mocking the commenters on this thread, not the women in Texas.
We need serious, practicable suggestions, not wild nonsense.
zhena gogolia
@RaflW:
Sounds interesting, I didn’t know about it.
Steeplejack (phone)
What exactly is the donation thermometer at the top for—the Texas Democratic Party in general or the 2022 governor’s race specifically?
Immanentize
@Omnes Omnibus: hmmm. I am pondering the difference between Shelley v. Kraemer (Courts cannot enforce racially discriminatory private property covenants) as opposed to US v. Cruikshank (US cannot prosecute mob violence against black people because it was not under color of law or state action). Of course both are now obsolete because of laws. Still….
Omnes Omnibus
@Ksmiami: I said nothing mocking about the people when are being hurt by this obscene law. The problems with this law are so great that I do not see how it is possible for it to survive judicial review. Ignoring for a moment the subject matter, it is simply an impossible, Rube Goldberg-esque clusterfuck of legal drafting. The fact that the Supremes let it go into effect is a travesty.
That being said, I stand by my original comment. Also, shouldn’t you be advocating violence as usual?
Ksmiami
@zhena gogolia: here’s a practical solution- money for TX legal defense, education and out of state abortion trips. Then focus on electing as many Democratic Party peeps but don’t expend too much money on Texas Dems just yet. That money is better spent getting Tim Ryan in Ohio, keeping Nevada and New Hampshire and Georgia and Wisconsin. And then we must bury the GOP with messaging.
Woodrow/asim
@Steeplejack (phone): From the ActBlue page:
RaflW
@Steeplejack (phone): Clicking thru to the giving page (as I will be donating momentarily, and also to my local fav Tarrant Dems), the BJ thermo looks to link just generally to Texas Democrats.
Immanentize
@gene108: This is the Shelley v. Kraemer issue. The Supreme Court is just lying about the state of law -+ the state legislature created the cause of action (state action) and courts will have to enforce those claims (state action). There is no complicated ambiguity.
This is only possible because abortion is icky and has to do with lady stuff. Periot.
Immanentize
@RaflW: Be clear — the six weeks is not measured from when one becomes pregnant — it is measured from the first day of your last period.
So 2-3 weeks of pregnancy in many/most cases?
ETA an actual heartbeat has nothing to do with the law. It is just a clever piece of PR.
WaterGirl
@japa21:
I know, I know. Whatever they damn well please?
Ksmiami
@Omnes Omnibus: in the meantime, most of the clinics in TX are shutting down and greedy testosterone addled TCU drop outs will harass women outside of yoga studios. Sure, it may not survive judicial review but that’s hardly a comfort to the women being affected Rt now.
The Moar You Know
@Omnes Omnibus: Worse. I’ll wait for actual practicing lawyers to weigh in. This is fucking disgraceful.
Immanentize
Here’s one for you all. A woman who very much wants to become pregnant or avoid pregnancy uses an online app to track her daily temp and cycle. Can a plaintiff subpoena the app for all information regarding that woman’s pregnancy?
Of course they can. And will the company cough up that info? Likely.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Woodrow/asim, @RaflW:
Thanks. Nice to have an inkling before clicking through.
Almost Retired
I would love to hear from a real live Texas lawyer on the practical effect this could have on the TX legal system. I ask because I’ve been on hold since 8:30 for a virtual court appearance that should take 5 minutes, and the Judge is kicking case after case into 2022 because of an overcrowded docket and COVID complications. Also the Judge is kind of a dick, but that’s not germane.
And this is happening in a state willing to tax itself for public services. Is TX set up to handle a potential rush of cases, or is this going to further gum out what I would imagine is an already over-burdened system?
Omnes Omnibus
@Immanentize: Let’s just go with void for vagueness. Gordian knot solution.
RaflW
Technically, abortion has a lot to do with man stuff too. As Immanentize says: Icky.
Also god dammed classic. Dude gets a brief moment of pleasure (and most likely refused to put a jiffi on) and then gets to run off without consequence. Heck, he could be the guy who sues his girl.
So fkd up.
jimmiraybob
It’s probably already been discussed so I’ll just ask, are there any good whistleblower websites to anonymously report neighbors that are witches? In the meantime, is it legal or recommended to apprehend them and weigh them against a duck?
Also too, if I send money to a candidate in Texas that supports a women’s autonomy – the right of conscience and conscientious action, does that constitute aiding and abetting?
Thanks in advance (for letting my frustration show).
sab
@Just Chuck: Certified mail so that they have a record.
burnspbesq
@Danton:
Doubtful.
This is the way that this is going to backfire on Texas Republicans. By forcing women to cross state lines to get medical services, they are making the provision of those services interstate commerce, which Congress has the exclusive power to regulate if it chooses to do so. And if the Feds choose to step in, then in addition to being unconstitutional, SB 8 is pre-empted by Federal law.
Immanentize
@Omnes Omnibus: problem with void for vagueness attack is that it is usually a doctrine applied to criminal enforcement (not civil causes of action). There is a serious question regarding Texas standing standards. Texas claims to generally follows Federal standing rules, and require actual harm, but there is no clear case or controversy rule. So Texas might say that without actual harm to a plaintiff, the legislature cannot create standing. Or not — the court is all elected and republican. So the standing Q is NOT a slam dunk.
WaterGirl
@Ksmiami: Are you looking for a fight here?
burnspbesq
@PPCLI:
Cruz has daughters. He’s a potential defendant. Damn right he’s going to keep his pie-hole zipped.
Immanentize
@WaterGirl: He is always looking for a fight. This morning it was all democrats must be defeated no matter what.
Eta I am not a pie consumer here. I prefer to just walk on by. But this one makes me want to savor a slice or ten ?
Ksmiami
@burnspbesq: what about airlines? Isn’t part of their charter to provide a reasonable level of safety for passengers and crew? Can the FAA pull the airport licenses as Texas becomes hostile and dangerous for women traveling?
Ksmiami
@WaterGirl: no- but I felt that Omnes’ comment was belittling
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack (phone): I added Texas Democratic Party under the thermometer – for clarity.
sab
@japa21: That is the beauty of this law. You don’t need standing and you don’t need to prove damages. Just totally off from about 500 years of legal tradition.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ksmiami: I am aware of that. That’s the Supremes who let this stand are assholes. If you want, I will decry the broccoli mandate, but my criticism of the amateur legal analysis in this thread doesn’t mean I am not aware of the pernicious nature of the law. I was posting practical things that people could do to help in the first fucking thread about this yesterday, so shove your self-righteous lectures up your ass. Okay?
sab
@Omnes Omnibus: There is a reason my legal career was brief and my accounting career was long. You should hear my RWNJ MBA brother try to do legal reasoning.
Woodrow/asim
They are my 1st pie here, in years. Just set it up, a bit ago, when I felt my ire from yesterday rising again.
scav
@RaflW: Every abusive husband, boyfriend, stalker or random male just got another coercive tool in his belt. As did all the jealous wives, girlfriends and blackmailers. Texas lawyers may just be looking at a windfall.
WaterGirl
@Ksmiami: You could take his first comment that way, sure, but the target was everybody who is coming up with schemes for finding ways to put in stick in the spokes of this evil wheel.
But nowhere did I see him downplaying how awful this issue is.
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
Doesn’t it? Brings back memories of late nights at the Oar House in Santa Monica.
Omnes Omnibus
@Immanentize: I have been busy this week so I have not actually read the law. I am going off of the analysis I have seen on line. What I see from that is an unenforceable mess.
sab
@Kent: Stand your ground doesn’t apply as a defense for women or minorities that the judges don’t like.
Ksmiami
@Omnes Omnibus: Quaint that you think we still have a legal system that can be worked- overnight, the “supremes” erased modern jurisprudence. In fact, the institutions Americans count on are failing in real time.
sab
@Ksmiami: Omnes is trying to keep a bunch of enthusiastic jackals from pursuing well-imtentioned felonious conduct.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ksmiami: Who was I belittling? I will give you a hint: not the victims of this law.
Ksmiami
@WaterGirl: but of course people are trying to brainstorm ways to fight this. Some ideas are going to be good, some bad, but I wouldn’t ridicule people for trying- not ever. Then again I’m a marketing person so I’m used to listening to lots of bad ideas but finding nuggets that work.
Ksmiami
@sab: then say it like that – they aren’t one-Ls they’re just concerned engaged citizens
Woodrow/asim
As promised: below is a repost w/sources on the legal (and other) impacts of this law — at least, what smarter people than I, know:
Non-Lawyer here, I’ll try: Part of the issue is that this bill was written to be as convoluted as possible, to evade exactly that kind of understanding, from both the courts and the media. Here’s a pretty good unrolled Tweet explaining that: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1432682606248747009.html
And it comes from this Vox Explainer, that goes onto say:
So a lot of us are working off known prior playbooks (hell, I and others are invoking shades of the Fugitive Slave Laws!) in trying to understand all this. Kay, in another comment today, noted how this is ripe for the usual conservative funding system to pump money into people working these bounties.
That said, another good explainer, written months ago, is the “Texas creates a market for abortion vigilantism” article, which really dives deep into that aspect of this odious “law”.
Hope this helps!
Splitting Image
@japa21:
Paper bag test.
I mean: they’ll say it’s about fetal heartbeat, but if the law is in place long enough to get data on who is doing the suing and who isn’t, and on who is getting sued and who isn’t….
burnspbesq
@Almost Retired:
Not a fucking chance.
Ksmiami
@sab: but therein is the path. Make sure the test case is a sweet young teaching student from SMU whom the judges will sympathize with.
James E Powell
@burnspbesq:
Did you guys have Con Law first year?
pajaro
@gvg:
As almost always, Henry is wrong.
piratedan
@Almost Retired: Texas couldn’t handle….
a) forecast heat waves
b) forecast cold waves
c) pandemic preparation
d) Jade Helm maneuvers
so while I know that there are plenty of intelligent and capable people in the State of Texas, I would say that the trends are against them being able to handle the judicial onslaught nimbly.
I fully expect that any successful non-violent responses to their legislative overreach will spur additional odious legislation (but that’s absolutely no reason not to fight what they are doing), make them pass and support the heinous shit to further illustrate why they are not fit to serve/represent the people of the state.
WaterGirl
@Ksmiami: I would call it good-natured mockery rather than belittling.
I find it comforting to see all the schemes because there is always the possibility that someone will hit upon the one weird trick that would destroy this evil.
Hope springs eternal, right?
I suspect that Omnes is more practical than I am.
sab
@Ksmiami: I would belittle non-legally trained people from trying their own hare-brained ideas instead of helping actual lawyers who know what they are doing. This thread has been fun but a lot of it is the legal equivalent of suggesting ivermectin for treating viruses.
ETA Talking about various approaches is fine, but our side cluttering up Texas courts with stupid or very fake cases just lets them bothsides who caused the upcomimg court mess.
pajaro
@Omnes Omnibus:
That’s because the law is a freaking law school exam written by a sadistic law school prof.
burnspbesq
@James E Powell:
Yes, but I had it from Ratner, so it’s fair to question how much actual Con Law I learned. Old dude had some peculiar ideas, and spent far more time on the “structural” parts than he did on the Bill of Rights.
Fortunately, I had Judy Resnik for Civ Pro, so I more or less accidentally learned a fair amount about Due Process.
WaterGirl
@Woodrow/asim: If you have the ability to email that story, you could send it to me and I could share parts of it in a post.
As it is, it requires a login in order to see the article.
Immanentize
@Omnes Omnibus: i worked on the case that went to SCOTUS after the Big habeas bill (AEDPA) in the mid 90’s. Ultimately the Court found that it was just a hot mess and unenforceable — Stevens said that in the world of silk purses and sows ears, the statute was the second and decided a critical part could not be used. —
But that was SCOTUS sitting as the appellate court for the federal system. I think the too poorly written (which the law is) to be enforced would have to be a State court holding. Maybe yes, maybe no. House odds.
Woodrow/asim
@WaterGirl: Of course! Just to be clear — the “abortion vigilantism” one, or the Vox Explainer? The former is supposed to be above their paywall, but maybe it’s broken?
Ksmiami
@WaterGirl: The trick here though is like making the true victims sympathetic and causing a media spectacle that shows how hideous the abortion vigilantes and their backers are. It’s like how hyper aware the Civil Rights fighters were. They knew they needed to show the evil on screen to get traction. So in addition to pure legalese, you need stagecraft
Immanentize
@Woodrow/asim: all true, but it is actually very easy to sort through the smoke that the lege tried to throw up. To pretend it is so crazy complicated that we just can’t figure it out is … Disingenuous.
Immanentize
@burnspbesq: Tru Tru.
PS, I am a real live Texas attorney — committing law since 1989 (although inactive right now)
James E Powell
@burnspbesq:
I went to night school, so I didn’t have it till the second year. Most of the conversations with my first year colleagues concerned lack of sleep.
Abortion rights was a hot topic in my second year because one of our professors argued a big case in the supreme court.
Omnes Omnibus
@Immanentize: I was clerking in federal court working specifically on AEPDA habeas cases in the late 90s. My clerkship was a extra one funded to handle that caseload.
Immanentize
@pajaro: Bwaahahahaha!!
Dorothy A. Winsor
OT but we need good news
Woodrow/asim
I can only communicate what I’ve reading from sources I know and/or are recommended, thereof. When I posted this yesterday, there wasn’t a lot of that, here or frankly elsewhere.
If you have more light than heat, I’m seriously all ears, here.
Immanentize
@burnspbesq: Resnik is great!
I’m sorry for you that you went to that law school, though.
burnspbesq
@Immanentize:
No idea if this would actually work (under color of state authority could be a problem), but if I got sued under this dog’s breakfast, I would counterclaim for damages under Section 1983 and file a notice of removal to try and get the case into Federal court.
pajaro
The law is an atrocity. But one of the weaknesses of handing off enforcement to private citizens is that the plaintiffs may be, in fact, private citizens, and they may not be ready for protracted litigation. I hope that elite law firms can be recruited to help defend those sued, and I believe that it should not be difficult to raise money to fund legal challenges. If this is, indeed, a civil action, there may be interesting discovery processes that can be a part.
Any effort to enforce this in another state really does put us in fugitive slave law territory.
I understand that the damage to federalism and the legal system are less important than the harm to women, but this is the second time in less than a year (the first being Texas’ suit to overturn the election outcome in states other than Texas) that the state had thrown a bomb in the legal system.
H.E.Wolf
There seem to be a number of men opining at length (and arguing with other men) in the Balloon Juice comment threads about women’s reproductive rights.
I would rather hear about the small, concrete actions men are taking to support reproductive choice for women.
One option might be: donate to one or more of these organizations, and pass the word along. https://nymag.com/strategist/2021/09/texas-abortion-ban-2021-where-to-donate.html
Immanentize
@Omnes Omnibus: Happy you got that opportunity. Sad it was mostly about such a messed up process.
Kent
@Almost Retired: I expect they don’t care if the courts are jammed up or if hardly anyone can ever get one of these cases to court. That’s not the point. The point is the chilling effect on legal abortions in TX and that is already happening without a single lawsuit to date.
burnspbesq
@Immanentize:
What are you, a Bruin?
I was there when Judge Nelson’s faculty recruiting efforts started to pay off. In addition to Judy for Civ Pro and Fed Courts, I had Bob Ellickson for Torts, Charlie Whitehead for Crim Pro, and Mike Graetz for Tax.
Kent
@pajaro: I expect the first lawsuits will be from people who are represented by deep pocketed right to life groups with competent lawyers. I wouldn’t count on incompetence to be the norm. There is a LOT of money out there sloshing around in evangelical/fundie/right to life type groups.
Martin
@PPCLI: Polls indicate that maybe 30% of voters approve of this law. There’s no upside campaigning on it.
This is related to my cynicism on political change. Democrats have had countless opportunities to codify Roe into law. Write the fucking thing, stick it in a drawer, and introduce it once you have WH, House, Senate. But Dems have treated Roe exactly the same way that the GOP has. It’s a turnout machine, getting scared voters to show up. They didn’t want the issue settled any more than the GOP did, using it as its own litmus test for court appointees.
They could have at any time in the last 48 years taken this out of the rickety mechanism of precedent and endless high stake USSC fights, but they didn’t want to. That was never a vote Dems were going to strongarm their members into.
I’m not blaming Dems here. This is how politics work. It’s not about morality and making the world better. Its about building and maintaining a coalition. Morality is at best a secondary consideration or something you indulge in using the profits of the coalition building effort. I hate that, but that’s how it works.
The Texas law helps to build and maintain that coalition for the GOP, but doesn’t serve to win general elections.
Kent
@Dorothy A. Winsor: But is he going to get his organic food meals in prison? Isn’t he the one that sued to get some jail to provide him with organic meals?
Immanentize
@H.E.Wolf: Some of us are talking about the very real law that is the present threat to all people’s reproductive rights. Men are implicated in this as well as women. The idea that only women have an interest in this attack is a perfect way to divide communities and lose the fight. Discreet acts include crafting viable legal challenges to bad law.
Or do you think male lawyers should be excluded from trying to protect fundamental rights of women? White lawyers should not try to protect or vindicate the rights of people of color? Only immigrants should represent immigrants?
You really should not be begging for that world. But I will accede to your suggestion and go now
Kent
@Martin: I agree 100%. Congress should have written abortion rights into law a long time ago. The problem also is that back when Dems had previous majorities, they had more pro-life Democrats in their majority. So it is not a safe assumption that they could ever have passed such legislation. Most of those previous conservative Dems have been replaced by GOP-ers so the lay of the land is different now. But the majorities are also much narrower.
WaterGirl
@Woodrow/asim: Never mind! I just clicked on it again so I could describe what I was seeing, and I noticed an X so I could click to make the big login box go away and then read the article. :-)
Immanentize
@burnspbesq: I am a Husky. I went to the Montessori Law School.
Those are some awesome teachers.
pajaro
@Kent:
OK, so blue America has a lot of money as well.
Baud
@Martin:
Incorrect. Since Roe was decided, Dems controlled the government for the four Carter years, the first two years under Clinton, and the first two years under Obama, and since January of this year. So the issue is whether it made sense for the Dems to believe there codifying Roe was a pressing issue during any of those years. And that’s putting aside the question, as Kent mentions, of whether the Dems had enough of a majority during that period to actual come to a legislative agreement on what codifying Roe would look like. I certainly don’t recall advocates making a push for a comprehensive legislative solution during any of those times.
Baud
Omnes Omnibus
@Immanentize: Also walking away.
Quiltingfool
I have not read this law in full, only know bits and pieces of it. My question to anyone here who is good at parsing legalese – what will happen to women who experience an ectopic pregnancy? Will doctors/hospitals refuse to treat as they will be sued for an abortion past the 6 week timeframe? As I understand ectopic pregnancies, surgery has to happen fast, or a woman bleeds to death internally.
Woodrow/asim
@Immanentize: As someone who’s a Cis Male, my 1st comment in this thread asks for the same thing H. E. Wolf does. And my last asked for your advice on how to understand this law, given your skills in that arena.
As such: I’ll not speak for Wolf, yet I did not, personally, take their comments in the sense you seem to have.
As you’d expect from that first comment, I’d agree with them that we should, in fact, be working to center the people who will be directly impacted by this. I don’t think it’s at all out of bounds to consider that, as I noted before, these orgs already on the ground in TX might have insights into this law, through their council, that even those already working law in TX in other realms might miss?
I’m striving to be open to listening and trying to understand, from people who are educated on these topics, the legal lay of the land around SB6. I think a lot of us, are like that, here.
Yet that cannot mean we don’t also acknowledge that there are people in Texas with a lot more experience in this topic, legal training or not, who point-blank need assistance right now. That seems a wise balance, to me at least.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@burnspbesq:
Nothing wrong with that.
burnspbesq
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
Sez you.
Martin
@H.E.Wolf:
So, here’s 3 from me:
Those are the 3 most direct that I can think of off hand.
Martin
@Kent: I’m aware of that. But there are countless other priorities that suffered from similar problems that the Dems were willing to put their shoulder into. This is not one of them.
Dems have been consistently on message about abortion, but have also been very timid about action around it, even in the protection of broader women’s health from attack.
@Baud:
They didn’t really need consensus. They could have codified a minimal set of protections. They codified none. It’s not like anti-abortion voters are gettable.
Baud
@Martin: They could have done any number of things on any number of issues. That’s just hindsight talking.
And for the record, I think the suggestion advocates would have been satisfied with a “minimal set of protections” if the Dems had taken up an issue as important as abortion is at odds with my experience with advocates.
Ksmiami
Shore up the Democratic Party in the west and Rocky states. Little Bighorn is a good strategy. Fund abortion services in New Mexico and Colorado- the states just a drive away…
H.E.Wolf
This was both fascinating, and idea-inspiring. Thank you!
Omnes Omnibus
I support both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. I also support groups that fight voter suppression and promote voter engagement on the theory that those efforts will bear fruit on many issues including reproductive freedom.
Marmot
Hey, thanks for putting up this thermometer!
mvr
Done!
thanks DougJ!
LiminalOwl
Done, and will do more when I can.
Uncle Cosmo
@WaterGirl: Geez, you just now noticed the big X in the upper lefthand corner?? 8^O
I wuz gonna post a helpful hint about that, for those grousing that Twitter was trying to force them to sign up – but I figgered yinz had that figgered out long ago & would just accuse me of insulting your intelligence…
Avalie
Done and thanks for the thermometer