Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

It's not a gotcha, it's the law.

So is a lot of things the Right completely ignores and nothing ever comes of.

 

[plague311]

Yeah it was.

When has "Oh well we'll just catch the Republicans in a GOTCHA by using their own tactics against them" ever worked?

The Courts, up to SCOTUS, will happily maintain the double standard and not lose any sleep over it.

As Cosmicaug said:

I don't think this is entirely true. While, as mentioned, the bill is definitely well crafted to avoid a lot of contestation I can't imagine how some rando is going to get medical information from a hospital about a certain patient. HIPAA is still a thing, and if the courts\police\feds aren't enforcing this because they can't, then I'm not sure how they're going to acquire any information about care provided to someone.

How do you provide information that someone didn't have an abortion? If it's not the woman being sued then discovery would be sent to those that "aided and abetted" but those people don't have a right to someone else's medical information either.

Who provides it? How do you show records that something didn't happen? How do you prove a negative?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think this is entirely true. While, as mentioned, the bill is definitely well crafted to avoid a lot of contestation I can't imagine how some rando is going to get medical information from a hospital about a certain patient. HIPAA is still a thing, and if the courts\police\feds aren't enforcing this because they can't, then I'm not sure how they're going to acquire any information about care provided to someone.

How do you provide information that someone didn't have an abortion? If it's not the woman being sued then discovery would be sent to those that "aided and abetted" but those people don't have a right to someone else's medical information either.

Who provides it? How do you show records that something didn't happen? How do you prove a negative?

I very much doubt very many of these lawsuits will happen at all. The intended effect is that abortion providers in the state are going to stop providing medical service as a precaution.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think this is entirely true. While, as mentioned, the bill is definitely well crafted to avoid a lot of contestation I can't imagine how some rando is going to get medical information from a hospital about a certain patient. HIPAA is still a thing, and if the courts\police\feds aren't enforcing this because they can't, then I'm not sure how they're going to acquire any information about care provided to someone.

Sympathetic people in the medical industry will leak it. Or people will just make it up. Or they will lie. This is a Witch Hunt. Going "But there's actual evidence they are witches! This doesn't make any sense!" is so much screaming into the void.

How do you provide information that someone didn't have an abortion? If it's not the woman being sued then discovery would be sent to those that "aided and abetted" but those people don't have a right to someone else's medical information either.

"Surely the Republicans will follow these standards..."

Who provides it? How do you show records that something didn't happen? How do you prove a negative?

Again, Witch Hunt. There is no burden of proof.

 

[plague311]

I very much doubt very many of these lawsuits will happen at all. The intended effect is that abortion providers in the state are going to stop providing medical service as a precaution.

One of the providers is going to have to bite the bullet if they want this dealt with sooner rather than later. The easiest way, in my opinion and IANAL, is to get a case in front of the courts, and send it to SCOTUS or use it to get an injunction for the law.

 

[plague311]

Sympathetic people in the medical industry will leak it. Or people will just make it up. Or they will lie. This is a Witch Hunt. Going "But there's actual evidence they are witches! This doesn't make any sense!" is so much screaming into the void.

No, it's really ******* not. You can't leak information that doesn't exist. I know your whole posting strategy is to be as negative and mocking as possible, but what you're saying isn't based in fact.

You can't just lie. You can't just make **** up in front of a court and expect it to work. A witch hunt is definitely what this is, and it sucks, but that doesn't mean it will work out the way it's planned. This isn't up to a local judge to say, "oh well, they said it, so I'm going to believe it." HIPAA is a federal law. It trumps this state nonsense.

"Surely the Republicans will follow these standards..."

I don't give a **** what they will follow, but I bet they won't have much of a choice up against a DOJ, which has said they'll be active, if they start stealing or having "sympathetic" hospital employees leaking information. It's just not going to happen.

ETA: Also, sympathetic employees at Planned Parenthood? Sympathetic to the GOP agenda? I guess anything is possible.

Again, Witch Hunt. There is no burden of proof.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

[JoeMorgue]

One of the providers is going to have to bite the bullet if they want this dealt with sooner rather than later. The easiest way, in my opinion and IANAL, is to get a case in front of the courts, and send it to SCOTUS or use it to get an injunction for the law.

The SCOTUS who just said it was okay? The 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS? The SCOTUS with 3 handpicked Trump toadies on it? The one with Handmaiden and "It's not rape because I was drunk" on it? That SCOTUS?

Just checking because I'm pretty sure it's going to go to that SCOTUS not the apolitical sane SCOTUS in some alternative dimension.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can't just lie. You can't just make **** up in front of a court and expect it to work.

What ******* world have you been living in for the last ~4 years?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, it's really ******* not. You can't leak information that doesn't exist. I know your whole posting strategy is to be as negative and mocking as possible, but what you're saying isn't based in fact.

You can't just lie. You can't just make **** up in front of a court and expect it to work. A witch hunt is definitely what this is, and it sucks, but that doesn't mean it will work out the way it's planned. This isn't up to a local judge to say, "oh well, they said it, so I'm going to believe it." HIPAA is a federal law. It trumps this state nonsense.



I don't give a **** what they will follow, but I bet they won't have much of a choice up against a DOJ, which has said they'll be active, if they start stealing or having "sympathetic" hospital employees leaking information. It's just not going to happen.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Losing the case isn't a big deal. The law doesn't allow for the wrongly accused to recover legal fees. The process is the punishment.

Allowing a bunch of reactionaries to bury abortion clinics in frivolous lawsuits is a feature, not a bug.

They already got a bunch of freaks protesting these places, just have these thugs start snitching on every woman they see walk in.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Slight hijack//

Ironically the Protestors haven't really been out in force at either our local Planned Parenthood office or the abortion clinics I pass by on my work route last few days*, which is weird because they peaked HARD during both of the most recent SCOTUS confirmation periods.

*As many of you probably know I do IT support for a chain of cancer treatment centers, about 15 sites in total. One of them is close by to our local Planned Parenthood office and others are in medical with or close by to abortion providers, so seeing abortion protestors isn't uncommon for me.

 

[plague311]

The SCOTUS who just said it was okay?

They refused to get involved at this point, which isn't an ok, but I already know what your rebuttal will be. Something, something, silence is complicit.

The 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS? The SCOTUS with 3 handpicked Trump toadies on it? The one with Handmaiden and "It's not rape because I was drunk" on it? That SCOTUS?

k

Just checking because I'm pretty sure it's going to go to that SCOTUS not the apolitical sane SCOTUS in some alternative dimension.

k

 

[TurkeysGhost]

//Slight hijack//

Ironically the Protestors haven't really been out in force at either our Planned Parenthood or the other abortion clinic I pass by on my work route last few days, which is weird because they peaked HARD during both of the most recent SCOTUS confirmation periods.

The ones near me in Brookline MA are only there in the morning, but they leave at 8am when the parking meters turn on.

I guess saving lives isn't worth 1.25 per hour.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Something, something, silence is complicit.

You say that with a snarky dismissal as if it's wrong.

 

[plague311]

Losing the case isn't a big deal. The law doesn't allow for the wrongly accused to recover legal fees. The process is the punishment.

...ok, well the plaintiff has to pay to file. If the defense doesn't have to hire an attorney then there is no legal fee to recover. Again, this isn't the woman that's being sued. She doesn't owe anything, it's places like PP that will be sued. Or Uber drivers (which the companies already said they'd cover), and so on. I won't argue that the process will suck for those companies.

Allowing a bunch of reactionaries to bury abortion clinics in frivolous lawsuits is a feature, not a bug.

I'm not contesting that, but it would only take one case to cause an injunction in the law. Then escalate it up.

They already got a bunch of freaks protesting these places, just have these thugs start snitching on every woman they see walk in.

They can go right ahead, but just because women enter PP doesn't mean it's for an abortion, right? PP and other clinics do other things and provide other care. Again, it isn't the woman being sued, it's the companies and associates.

 

[plague311]

You say that with a snarky dismissal as if it's wrong.

I say it with snarky dismissal because it's predictable and means nothing right now. They didn't take up an injunction, 4 members of the court said it wasn't "okay", 5 made excuses as to how the law works. Everyone here is arguing about how the law works.

Was it wrong for those 5 justices to vote the way they did? Sure, I don't agree with it, but it can't be changed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The ones near me in Brookline MA are only there in the morning, but they leave at 8am when the parking meters turn on.

I guess saving lives isn't worth 1.25 per hour.

The one I see the most often is at a local abortion clinic* that in the same medical office building so it shares a parking lot with one of my client sites and the abortion protestors tend to cluster right at the entrance so I sort of have to drive past them, often getting screamed at because male IT dorks in their 40s are known for getting abortions I guess. And **** I drive a bright orange Dodge Dart and I'm at the site twice a week, you figured they would start to recognize me. Hope they don't think I'm getting abortions more often than I get my hair cut.

Usually it's like two old ladies and one like gigantic dude in a mobility scooter holding up your bog standard "Insert Overused Abortion Cliche Here" signs. But during the Kavanaugh and Barrett hearings for some reason they were joined for a few weeks by the "Holding up dead fetus pictures while running up screaming at cars screaming murderer" brigade.

*I say abortion clinic but I have absolutely no idea if they actually do the abortions there or it just a consoling and referencing place.

 

[Bob001]

.....
They already got a bunch of freaks protesting these places, just have these thugs start snitching on every woman they see walk in.

Actually, as I read it, anybody could sue any woman and claim without evidence that she had had an illegal abortion, or sue any person and claim that he/she had facilitated one -- any public figure, anybody they don't like -- and the defendant would have to respond, most likely requiring hiring a lawyer. This is open-ended legal harassment.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I say it with snarky dismissal because it's predictable and means nothing right now. They didn't take up an injunction, 4 members of the court said it wasn't "okay", 5 made excuses as to how the law works. Everyone here is arguing about how the law works.

Was it wrong for those 5 justices to vote the way they did? Sure, I don't agree with it, but it can't be changed.

So I'm not getting what you think is going to change when it goes to SCOTUS again.

You just shifted gears into "Watcha going do about it?" without a pressing the clutch.

 

[plague311]

Actually, as I read it, anybody could sue any woman and claim without evidence that she had had an illegal abortion, or sue any person and claim that he/she had facilitated one -- any public figure, anybody they don't like -- and the defendant would have to respond, most likely requiring hiring a lawyer. This is open-ended legal harassment.

Right, which is what would be challenged in the first case. You're right, that's what the law says, but since nobody is enforcing it from the government then it doesn't really matter, does it?

This is to say, the law says a bunch of ****, and it's only been slightly challenged. You don't need to hire a lawyer for civil cases and the courts can't force a defendant to turn over someone else's hospital information. If that's what they try to do then the DOJ will immediately get involved due to it being a HIPAA violation. From what I've read and seen the only reason they haven't done that so far is there hasn't been a legitimate filing yet. As someone else mentioned, a lower court has placed attempts to file a lawsuit using this law on hold.

So I'm not getting what you think is going to change when it goes to SCOTUS again.

You just shifted gears into "Watcha going do about it?" without a pressing the clutch.

Jesus Christ, it hasn't gone in front of them once, so they can't do it "again". An injunction was requested, and denied without debate.

I haven't shifted anything to anywhere. There are several challenges that can be brought to this law, and any of them can win or lose. Nothing has been decided, no SCOTUS precedent has been set, no court case has been decided, absolutely nothing has been done thus far.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Actually, as I read it, anybody could sue any woman and claim without evidence that she had had an illegal abortion, or sue any person and claim that he/she had facilitated one -- any public figure, anybody they don't like -- and the defendant would have to respond, most likely requiring hiring a lawyer. This is open-ended legal harassment.

Much of the outrage was rightly directed at SCOTUS for signaling their openness to effectively overturn Roe V Wade, but the part of the law that totally dispatches with the concept of needing "standing" to file a lawsuit is probably the most egregious.

Like you say, if this kind of law is allowed to stand it opens the door to a free for all that would grind the courts to a complete halt. It really shows how diseased the current SCOTUS is that this is not rejected on its face.