Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...


What is all this? If you are being sued for thousands of dollars (and 10 grand is the minimum, not a max) you sure as hell need a lawyer. And the point is that a defendant has to go to the time and expense of responding, even to get the case thrown out. What makes you think medical records would be untouchable in a suit about medical care? And what makes you think that getting one case thrown out could prevent anybody else from filing?

And the bottom line is that abortion clinics have stopped providing services now, even if the new law is somehow invalidated months or years down the road.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
What is all this? If you are being sued for thousands of dollars (and 10 grand is the minimum, not a max) you sure as hell need a lawyer. And the point is that a defendant has to go to the time and expense of responding, even to get the case thrown out. What makes you think medical records would be untouchable in a suit about medical care? And what makes you think that getting one case thrown out could prevent anybody else from filing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm being understood properly. I don't want the case thrown out, I want them to attempt to get medical records because that's what would invite the DOJ in since they're trying to circumvent a federal law. HIPAA isn't up for a local or state judge to decide to bypass. The lawsuit isn't against a woman, and HIPAA states very clearly that medical care providers cannot disseminate medical records without the consent of the patient. That's where I'm going with all this.

What's stopping people from filing is the fact a state judge (or county? I can't remember) has put the lawsuits on hold.

Now yes, the companies being sued will have to sacrifice time and money. That sucks, it really sucks. I'm not a fan either, and I'm certainly not saying it's fair, but at this point it's going to have to happen to someone willing to fight in court, at least once, to get this to SCOTUS.

Bob001 said:
And the bottom line is that abortion clinics have stopped providing services now, even if the new law is somehow invalidated months or years down the road.
Click to expand...

You're right. That sucks. That's why I'm not focusing on the prevention of this law going into effect, I'm focusing on how to get it tossed out or how to get DOJ a direct inroad to fight it alongside those who are affected.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm failing to see what someone going to jail for hacking a medical database has to do with a law that encourages people to snitch on their community.
Click to expand...

It's a case from Texas where someone went to jail for unlawfully acquiring personal medical information. Unless the person tells you about their medical status, it's unlikely that you acquired information about the status of their pregnancy lawfully. There are federal laws that protect the privacy of such information. If you bring a bounty hunter suit, a counter attack good be (admittedly not in all situations) charges of stealing PHI.
 
plague311 said:
What's stopping people from filing is the fact a state judge (or county? I can't remember) has put the lawsuits on hold.
Click to expand...
Are you referencing the case I linked a few posts back? That's in the form of a restraining order at the moment and I'm not sure it can stop all suits or just the Texas Right to Life group. There is a hearing set for Monday (13SEP) to determine if the order is to be extended.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Are you referencing the case I linked a few posts back? That's in the form of a restraining order at the moment and I'm not sure it can stop all suits or just the Texas Right to Life group. There is a hearing set for Monday (13SEP) to determine if the order is to be extended.
Click to expand...

That might be it, and I think you're right. It stopped that group from suing, I'm not sure how many other private citizens would be filing. A solo citizen probably wouldn't try it if the judge stopped that group.
 
So, HIPAA versus state civil court case, yet more of a Gordian knot:

Plaintiff: I saw a woman go into planned parenthood at <this address>. I was gossiping with my neighbor who said shes pregnant. I can only conclude she pregnant, Thats why I'm suing.
Defendant: we didn't perform an abortion. Thats not why she was there.
Plaintiff: oh yeah then release her records.
Defendant: We can't do that, thats a HIPAA violation
Judge: OK I'll subpoena the woman in question, and she can release her records.
Woman in question: None of your business, I plead the 5th.
Judge: you can't plead the 5th, you aren't the accused, I'm holding you in contempt, have fun in jail.

Fun stuff.
 
Last edited:
I'm still not seeing what the counter to the Republican "Okay fine it's against the law. You gonna stop us Libtards?" strategy is supposed to be.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm still not seeing what the counter to the Republican "Okay fine it's against the law. You gonna stop us Libtards?" strategy is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Hmm, grow some ******* balls? Send in the FBI to arrest anyone involved in prosecuting a civil case that violates a persons rights that is already decided in case law. Prosecute them for civil rights violations. You know, federal supremacy clause and all.

I could be wrong, but it looks like Garland is moving in that direction.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Hmm, grow some ******* balls?
Click to expand...

They didn't grow any for Trump when he was actively attempting a coup, they aren't going to grow any for Texas.

Maybe Pelosi can sarcastically clap and roll her eyes at them so Twitter can do another "YAAAAAS QUEEEN" creaming their pants session over her.

They'll talk big and then get distracted by an offensive Tweet someone from their side made 10 years ago.

Or they'll get a law ready to go and then one of the super-Progressives will stall it out because there's no unrelated "Universal Income" or "Federally Subsidized Rainbow Stickers for Inner City Wheelchair Transgender Autistic Children" clause in it.

Because they are Democrats and if you give them 3 wishes they'll negotiate it down to 1 and then use that to wish for something they think the Republicans would like.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
They didn't grow any for Trump when he was actively attempting a coup, they aren't going to grow any for Texas.

Maybe Pelosi can sarcastically clap and roll her eyes at them so Twitter can do another "YAAAAAS QUEEEN" creaming their pants session over her.

They'll talk big and then get distracted by an offensive Tweet someone from their side made 10 years ago.

Or they'll get a law ready to go and then one of the super-Progressives will stall it out because there's no unrelated "Universal Income" or "Federally Subsidized Rainbow Stickers for Inner City Wheelchair Transgender Autistic Children" clause in it.

Because they are Democrats and if you give them 3 wishes they'll negotiate it down to 1 and then use that to wish for something they think the Republicans would like.
Click to expand...

Sad but (hilariously) true. Nominated.
 
JoeMorgue said:
They did grow any for Trump when he was actively attempting a coup, they aren't going to grow any for Texas.

Maybe Pelosi can sarcastically clap at them.

They'll talk big and then get distracted by an offensive Tweet someone from their side made 10 years ago.

Or they'll get a law ready to go and then one of the super-Progressives will stall it out because there's no "Subsidized Rainbow Stickers for Inner City Wheelchair Transgender Autistic Children" clause in it.

Because they are Democrats and if you give them 3 wishes they'll negotiate it down to 1 and then use that to wish for something they think the Republicans would like.
Click to expand...

Lol, I know you're 100% correct on any hope for a legislative solution. I mean they won't get rid of the filibuster so theres no hope there anyways. They couldn't even remove members of congress aiding and abetting an insurrection.

But, I'm still cautiously hopeful that Garland isn't going to play with kid gloves here.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because they are Democrats and if you give them 3 wishes they'll negotiate it down to 1 and then use that to wish for something they think the Republicans would like.
Click to expand...

We are often at odds, but that last is pure brilliance.

As far as **** balls, I long for a Federal response such as this:

https://youtu.be/YgbNc-9Di7k

Kennedy’s response to George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door. Now, if Biden can just channel his inner Kennedy!
 
JoeMorgue said:
They didn't grow any for Trump when he was actively attempting a coup, they aren't going to grow any for Texas.

Maybe Pelosi can sarcastically clap and roll her eyes at them so Twitter can do another "YAAAAAS QUEEEN" creaming their pants session over her.

They'll talk big and then get distracted by an offensive Tweet someone from their side made 10 years ago.

Or they'll get a law ready to go and then one of the super-Progressives will stall it out because there's no unrelated "Universal Income" or "Federally Subsidized Rainbow Stickers for Inner City Wheelchair Transgender Autistic Children" clause in it.

Because they are Democrats and if you give them 3 wishes they'll negotiate it down to 1 and then use that to wish for something they think the Republicans would like.
Click to expand...

Oh, for crying out loud. They IMPEACHED HIM TWICE. Sorry, Joe...but the incessant whining about how the Dems are just weak do-nothings is wearing really thin.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
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.

k



k
Click to expand...
What plague said. Joe is either making **** up or listening to people who are making **** up. The SCOTUS in the majority opinion, clearly said, they weren't saying this law was ok. The law was crafted to avoid a preemptive lawsuit of this sort, it worked.
 
Fine yet again I am totally convinced.

The Texas law will be overturned any day now. Any day now. Any day. Yet again.

I mean Susan Collins assured us that Kavanaugh would never overturn Roe Vs Wade and she wouldn't lie. It's not like stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe Vs Wade hasn't been their entire stated goal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom