Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
We've seen what the Maga Scum and Trumptrash threaten public health officials with at county councils and school board meetings. Americans should be able to do the same to anyone who brings a Texas lawsuit. Bring a lawsuit, get a picture of your kids getting on a school bus in the mail.
 
When the recognition of Scientology as a religion was appealed to the High Court of Australia, Chief Justice Murphy commented that the beliefs of Scientologists were no less ridiculous than any other church. Sadly this Supreme Court will not make such a finding.
 
TragicMonkey said:
According to one article I read, even if the sued "abortion helper" wins in court they aren't allowed to recover their court costs and attorney fees from the loser. Which means anyone can simply be sued into ruin.
Click to expand...

Is there any limit on nationality? Does the suer need to be an US citizen or can anyone across the globe get on this?

I mean just hypothetical, but lets say that some Indian call center decided to replace tech support calls with "It would be a shame if you got sued"-calls and offer a decent deal to avoid a few thousand law suits.
 
Some details..it's a 23 page document
Sec.A171.209.AACIVIL LIABILITY: UNDUE BURDEN DEFENSE
LIMITATIONS. (a) A defendant against whom an action is brought
under Section 171.208 does not have standing to assert the rights of
women seeking an abortion as a defense to liability under that
section unless:
(1)AAthe United States Supreme Court holds that the
courts of this state must confer standing on that defendant to
assert the third-party rights of women seeking an abortion in state
court as a matter of federal constitutional law; or
(2)AAthe defendant is an abortion provider, an employee
of an abortion provider, or a physician who performs abortions.
(b)AAA defendant in an action brought under Section 171.208
may assert an affirmative defense to liability under this section
only if:
(1)AAthe defendant has standing to assert the
third-party rights of women seeking an abortion in accordance with
Subsection (a); and
(2)AAthe defendant demonstrates that the relief sought
by the claimant will impose an undue burden on women seeking an
abortion.
(c)AAA court may not find an undue burden under Subsection
(b) unless the defendant introduces evidence proving that:
(1)AAan award of relief will prevent an identifiable
woman or an identifiable group of women from obtaining an abortion;
or
(2)AAan award of relief will place a substantial
1
H.B.ANo.A1515
9
obstacle in the path of an identifiable woman or an identifiable
group of women who are seeking an abortion.
(d)AAA defendant may not establish an undue burden under this
section by:
(1)AAmerely demonstrating that an award of relief will
prevent women from obtaining support or assistance, financial or
otherwise, from others in their effort to obtain an abortion; or
(2)AAarguing or attempting to demonstrate that an award
of relief against other defendants or other potential defendants
will impose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.
(e)AAThe affirmative defense under Subsection (b) is not
available if the United States Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
(1992), regardless of whether the conduct on which the cause of
action is based under Section 171.208 occurred before the Supreme
Court overruled either of those decisions.
Click to expand...
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01515I.PDF
 
There are many similar references to Supreme Court. That way if in the future...guaranteed... cases arise and the go to SP court, only that line or section is changed, not the rest of the law.

As it is, aborted women have no standing in court, only the provider.
 
GoDaddy boots Texas abortion “whistleblower” site for violating privacy rule


The Texas Right to Life group will have to find a new hosting provider for its website that encourages people to report violations of the state's restrictive new anti-abortion law.

GoDaddy took action after Gizmodo reported that Texas Right to Life's new website, prolifewhistleblower.com, seems to violate a GoDaddy rule that says website operators may not "collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another user or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent." GoDaddy's terms of service also say that customers cannot use the web hosting platform in a way that "[v]iolates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity."
Click to expand...

So where did they go? To Epik, last-resort host of dumpster fires like Gab, Parler, and 8chan.

Update at 9:45 pm ET: The website went offline briefly but is now back. Its new hosting provider, Digital Ocean, also has rules against violating people's privacy, including one that bans "[c]ontent that... is intended to harass, abuse or invade the privacy of any individual."

While the abortion whistleblower site points to Digital Ocean name servers, its domain registrar is Epik, which has served controversial platforms such as Gab, Parler, and 8chan.

Update at 12:35 am ET on September 4: Digital Ocean has apparently cut off hosting service, as the anti-abortion website is now using Epik for its name servers and as its domain registrar.
Click to expand...
 
If a woman in Texas has an abortion, or is prescribed pills to tale home to abort, how would the public, the state or other parties find out? Must the clinic keep documents? And if they do, how would any of them become public? Even redacted versions are an invadion of privacy on the woman.

A doctor could charge a flat fee of 500-1000 for every visit. The billing would not reveal info on the patient.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
The bill says "any person" can bring suit. It does not say Texas residents only, or even US citizens only. They have effectively opened it up to global spamming.
Click to expand...

It's possible the plaintiff wouldn't even need to appear in court, at least not before trial. One enterprising Texas lawyer could probably pursue thousands of cases against thousands of defendants.
 
This is like passing a law saying that I can sue someone for a traffic accident that I wasn't even involved in. Isn't there some legal precedent that says that a party has to show they've been harmed in some way by the defendant? IANAL, but this seems blatantly unconstitutional and ridiculous.
 
lionking said:
When the recognition of Scientology as a religion was appealed to the High Court of Australia, Chief Justice Murphy commented that the beliefs of Scientologists were no less ridiculous than any other church. Sadly this Supreme Court will not make such a finding.
Click to expand...

It could be worse than that. The Taliban majority of the SCOTUS could rule that a fetus is a person and that no religious ritual can legalize the murder of that person.
 
shemp said:
This is like passing a law saying that I can sue someone for a traffic accident that I wasn't even involved in. Isn't there some legal precedent that says that a party has to show they've been harmed in some way by the defendant? IANAL, but this seems blatantly unconstitutional and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

IANAL either, but a plaintiff generally has to demonstrate “standing” to pursue legal remedies. Standing means that one has to show how he or she were personally harmed by the actions of another. I believe many of the 60+ lawsuits brought over the 2020 election were dismissed because the plaintiffs could not show standing.

Seems like that would come up quickly when a random person seeks to sue under the new Texas law. Seems very hard to show one was harmed by a stranger having an abortion. Unless the law establishes/carves out a legal loophole making standing unnecessary. Surprised that I haven’t heard this mentioned in any of the several legal discussions I’ve listened to about the Texas law.
 
Bob001 said:
Satanists respond to Texas law by demanding religious freedom exemption for their "abortion ritual."
Click to expand...

That doesn't count because Satanism isn't a serious religion.

Someone here will spend 30 pages telling you all about it, whether anyone asked or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom