Obviously the hardliners are committed, but given the horror of the situation, isn't a last ditch effort appropriate? If the loophole is that the Supreme Court looks differently on torts, can they make a test case where someone is sued and enjoined, so they can sue the state for enforcing the judicial order? Or does the loophole cover that too? I haven't read anything about this.
Here's a Texas abortion funds donation-splitting page, via AOC. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/texas-abortion-funds
I am not clear on the details at the lawyering level, but I think that yes, it'll be a very different set of procedural issues when it's a case where some asshole is trying to enforce the law against a defendant clinic.
"It is also an outgrowth of a Republican Party that increasingly encourages vigilantism."
There's an interesting new paper, free download ATM, on the rise of what it dubs "Ken & Karen Laws" like this, white-collar judicial vigilantism.
I'd add, somewhere on a continuum between Kyle Rittenhouse and Focus on the Family, the laws allowing people to run over protestors - since killing people with your car and not getting punished is the most white-collar kind of murder I can think of.
Of course it's debatable that KKLs are a supernaturally clever legal hack, since as someone else pointed out on Twitter, SCOTUS would never abide a similar law allowing private lawsuits against handgun owners in CA.
It's a great way to make sure people treat their neighbors like potential Stasi agents.
I clicked on a link and lost my comment. Neal Katyal was making the point about vigilante justice and saying that Tech Companies should think twice about moving to Texas because of the lack of respect for the rule of law the enforcement by private suit where almost anybody has standing.
Imagine an Uber driver who gets sued for driving someone who winds up trying to get an abortion. Now the Uber driver will feel a need to spy on his passengers to avoid getting in trouble.
Who should get donations? Is it better to provide money to small organizations helping women get abortions?
If you donate to Planned Parenthood national, which supports state orgs including in TX, can you be sued for $10k if you ever travel to TX?
If someone sues a provider for $10k, they benefitted from that provider's actions and therefore might have been in favor of it happening. Can they then be sued for the $10k they just won? It's the tort lawyer full employment act.
If you donate to Planned Parenthood national, which supports state orgs including in TX, can you be sued for $10k if you ever travel to TX?
IANAL, but presumably there's some way to make the donation with a good faith belief that the organization will be following the appropriate laws.
Heck, if I donate to the TX abortion fund, can I claim that I did so with the expectation that they would only fund abortions within the six-week window?
Realistically, who is going to be suing organization donors? If they cow the organization themselves into compliance, they've achieved their goal. Also presumably much harder for non residents. (Is there even extradition for civil cases?)
Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to be a test case for vigilantes if they did go that way; I would be able to enlist advocate lawyers so probably no legal bills, and I could weather it even if there were.
The test case is one thing. The 154th case might have trouble.
10: they won't go after you, and apparently lots of people can sue people in multiple venues. If you drive someone out of State for the purpose of getting an abortion, does that violate the law? I don't think a state can regulate interstate travel, and they can't regulate the provision of medical services in another state.
Destroying the Interstate Commerce clause to own the libs.
They have a shot at $10k with you covering lawyer fees. Why wouldn't they try as many bounties as they can?
We've always known that SCOTUS was going to overturn Roe v Wade -- de facto, if not de jure. I don't think this is the case where they'll do it.
The Texas law creates too many unfortunate potential side effects -- after all liberal states can empower vigilantes, too. (Not on guns, though. The Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to gun ownership. It's not one of the Constitution's weak, qualified guarantees, like free speech or due process.)
Nah, Texas will be moot before too long, because all abortion will be bannable. (The word "abortion" doesn't even appear in the Constitution.) The court, probably in a 5-4 decision, will overturn the law and congratulate itself on its moderation and willingness to compromise. The media will eat that shit up.
One ominous thing about this case, though, is that it shows how far a 5-4 majority is willing to go to throw the rule of law out the window in order to fuck over poor women for a limited time.
Mike Dunford has a thread up about how this might affect the incorporation doctrine: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1433389231586615304
Mike Dunford has a thread up about how this might affect the incorporation doctrine: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1433389231586615304
It is interesting to me that we're calling this vigilante-ism, 'cause in my mind, bounty systems seem really powerful and good. Like, we could let people register with the IRS and then look for fraud and keep 10% of their successful findings. Something like that.
I guess we only want the howling mob when it is facing the direction we like.
The narc/vigilante part of it is so disturbing that I'm kind of still processing.
There's a difference between the IRS bounty, which is administered by the IRS, and this, which is allowing private citizens with no personal injury to file suit. This could allow a bunch of different citizens in different counties across the state to file suit for the same conduct, each of which would theoretically need to be defended. It is threatening people with a "death by a thousand cuts".
The California Abortion Protection Act of 2021: any California citizen may bring a civil action against any Texas legislator setting foot in California for $10k statutory damages for each Texas woman denied her constitutional rights by this law, measured by the reduction in abortions performed before and after 9/1/21. Duplicate across blue states.
18: Yes, I think private civil enforcement is bad when it's used to prosecute pregnant people and clinics helping them, and fine when it's used to more efficiently identify tax evaders. Similar to how a furor canceling someone for drawing the wrong kind of fanart is bad, and a furor canceling someone powerful for ongoing unabashed public racism is good. I don't think that's logically or morally inconsistent.
Like, it might be an efficient tool, but the efficiency is not the question.
Some concrete reasons why it's worse against poor people who got pregnant: civil court is much harder to navigate, with no right to a public defender; no check in the form of DAs declining to prosecute.
By contrast, the IRS whistleblower reward program works under IRS discretion, and can only be sought against people with high incomes in the first place. And False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits can be taken over or dismissed by the executive branch.
||
This morning at one of the other places I saw a graph of Afghanistan deaths over time that included as a last bar in the histogram the 13 from the most recent attack. Now I can't find it or google it. has anybody seen it and have a link?"
|>
23: I haven't seen one that recent, but this had a good graph: https://jeetheer.substack.com/p/lies-about-afghanistan
12. Surely they can't sue for driving a woman out of state. Otherwise they could sue Greyhound for running a bus to somewhere a woman might get an abortion. Or sue a Ford dealer for selling a car to a woman who might in the future drive it to an abortion clinic out of state. Have they actually thought this through at all?
25: You think like they'd think it was a bad thing to restrict women's free movement.
Yes. The point is the ability to make life miserable for those who disagree with them. If it becomes hard for young women to buy a plane ticket without being questioned about their uterus, they win.
23: That's it! Thanks. I will now stupidly stir up a hornets nest. Maybe.
I don't think a state can regulate interstate travel, and they can't regulate the provision of medical services in another state.
A state also can't ban pre-viability abortions, and yet, here we are.
(Was typing out a longer comment explaining why, contra 14, I don't think this Uber driver/out-of-state Planned Parenthood donor parade of horribles would be likely to emerge--even factoring in the utter lawlessness of all this. But really, what's the point? Everything about this is horrible, and I certainly don't want to create the impression of downplaying anything here. If you really want to get yourself worked up about an angle beyond the whole abortion ban thing, though, the "intends" provision is probably the place to start.)
I don't think a state can regulate interstate travel, and they can't regulate the provision of medical services in another state.
A state also can't ban pre-viability abortions, and yet, here we are.
(Was typing out a longer comment explaining why, contra 14, I don't think this Uber driver/out-of-state Planned Parenthood donor parade of horribles would be likely to emerge--even factoring in the utter lawlessness of all this. But really, what's the point? Everything about this is horrible, and I certainly don't want to create the impression of downplaying anything here. If you really want to get yourself worked up about an angle beyond the whole abortion ban thing, though, the "intends" provision is probably the place to start.)
The "prove your miscarriage was real to a middle-class jury even though you didn't have a separate room to paint pink" testimony is going to be brutal.
There needs to be a pressure campaign on corporate America like the ones that backed Republican legislators away from some of their more egregious anti-gay and anti-trans efforts.
31: I just keep reflecting that I had a bleeding scare with the Calabat's pregnancy, and had to go to the hospital at 11 weeks pregnant, and called my best friend to meet me at the hospital because shiv had just left on a work trip that morning, and I can't imagine having had to go alone because she would be afraid that some nebshit who didn't understand that 'threatened abortion' was the diagnosis, not a statement of my intent, would sue her.
Also, IME one can't really confirm a pregnancy before six weeks -- it's too little to see on the ultrasound, and there's no heartbeat because there isn't a heart yet. So it's sort of situation where one can get an abortion only if one cannot prove the pregnancy exists, which would be the most absurd thing about this ban except for ALL THE OTHER CRAZY FUCKING BULLSHIT.
The law is clear that only the first person to sue an abortion provider for a particular abortion gets the bounty. An abortion provider should sue herself immediately after each procedure, and collect the $10,000 from herself. Or NARAL should sue all abortion providers after each abortion and then decline to collect on the judgments.
Not clear how this method would work for friends, uber drivers etc.
While various procedural approaches could be tried to challenge the law, they all have the same defect: Once the Supreme Court reaches the merits, it will uphold the statute and overturn Roe v. Wade. There aren't 50 votes in the senate to add seats to the Supreme Court.
This some fresh hot bullshit right here:
Susan Collins, who voted for Kavanaugh after expressing confidence he wouldn't overturn Roe, says after Texas case: "Of those I've voted to confirm, three voted with the majority and three voted with the minority. The one I voted against voted with the majority."
Well, you know, Susan, you fuck one goat...
31: As someone who has suffered a miscarriage (also known as a "spontaneous abortion," in medical terminology), this is just horrifying to me.
Also horrifying: the vigilante/bounty hunter aspects of this Texas law.
The bounty "strategy" keeps making me think of the Spanish Inquisition confiscating assets from its victims, although I am absolutely no expert on the subject. I wonder if suits are being filed as we speak. Probably?
Reading the Dunford thread - how does anyone prove an abortion happened? Access to medical records is limited - can you subpoena medical records in a civil case like this? I know you can get them in malpractice cases, but generally the plaintiff is the patient, or a relative if the patient is a minor or dead.
Reading the Dunford thread - how does anyone prove an abortion happened? Access to medical records is limited - can you subpoena medical records in a civil case like this? I know you can get them in malpractice cases, but generally the plaintiff is the patient, or a relative if the patient is a minor or dead.
I think HIPPA has been changed and it now only protects your vaccination record.
As someone who has gone to jail for defending reproductive freedom, I'm willing to do as much and more. Direct action gets the goods.
Somewhat relatedly, w/r/t stand-your-ground-laws, if someone has a legal right to be at a Planned Parenthood clinic, and someone else is threatening them, couldn't you just haul off and shoot the anti-choicer?
[I should point out that I'm really not nearly as worried about long prison terms as I used to be. Given my health, all I have to do is stop taking my meds and I can give myself another heart attack pdq. YOU'LL NEVER KEEP ME ALIVE, COPPERS!]
I wonder if the fucking antis who hang out outside the women's health clinic downtown are still around? There's usually only one or two of them there.
I don't feel like Texans need our advice about when they can legally shoot each other. That's what the schools are for.
The funny thing to me about all this stand-your-ground bazullshazit is that all these dickless wonders who like to waive their pistols around seem to think they're Quick-Draw McGraw. A white guy in a suit, carrying a mailing tube, walks up to within a few feet of you. Do you yank your rod and start threatening him? Or is your last thought "Shit, I didn't think another white guy would kill me with a machete!"
Guns for show, knives for a pro
Access to medical records is limited - can you subpoena medical records in a civil case like this?
Not with an simple subpoena, but you can get them if the subpoena is backed by a court order (among other ways). Any court inclined to treat SB8 as enforceable isn't going to have any trouble ordering disclosure. But if the defendant isn't willing to commit perjury, they probably wouldn't even need that. No criminal exposure, no right against self-incrimination.
Presumably, if you're connected enough, you'll be able to lie like a South Dakota Republican after getting drunk and running over a pedestrian.
49 - Thanks, that's what I figured. And you answered the other question without me even asking! This place is amazing...
Hey lawyers -- does this law mean that bounty-hunters can sue librarians for helping patrons search for abortion providers? I haven't yet heard anything official from library sources on this.
The wording is "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion." My take is that it's intentionally ambiguous and overbroad, precisely because the goal is to create as much risk and uncertainty as possible and thereby scare people away from taking actions that the state can't legally prohibit. It's a really disgustingly lawless bit of legislation, and it says a lot about this SCt that five justices are ok with that.
I was listening to NPR this morning, and it really sounded like everyone providing abortions in Texas is just going to stop.
Okay, one more before I try to calm down enough to go to sleep: Because Texas, how about a Ladies' Turkey Shoot in Austin? Must be a hell of a lot of pro-choice women in Texas who own guns. 1,000? 10,000? Could be a lot of enthusiasm if you built it up right! (In case anyone ever wonders, this is the kind of thing I brainstorm in case of a future lottery win that would allow me to be the World's Richest Anarchist and foment revolution everywhere.)
Shoot those turkeys, ladies! Git 'em, git 'em!
42: HIPPA with 2 Ps no less. (that is how the people who think it protects your vaccination record misspell it.)
My FIL who is having his brain melted by Fox News sent me another video, this time the Sto/ry of Iver/mectin. The previous video was about how COVID infection confers better immunity than the vaccine so it's better if we all get it and then the pandemic will be over. I don't know if I should just tell him no it's wrong or get into the larger epistemological discussion about why he thinks there are people who find secret treatments that THEY don't want you to know about.
Because pooping out your intestinal lining should be something you save for marriage
The point isn't that the vaccine or getting COVID gives "better" protection, they both give good enough protection and one doesn't risk your life.
I really have to stop reading the Herman Cain Awards.
You can tell Elizabeth Bruenig isn't on Emerson's page at the other place because she wrote a whole article on covid-related death-shaming without mentioning it.
59: The secret treatment is a huge pet peeve of mine, but that is an unwinnable argument. My typical response is something like, "So you think all my coworkers, my former classmates, my friends, who went into this field specifically to find cures and relieve human suffering . . . found it and are lying? You think all of us are in on some kind of bizarre scam to keep you from smoking pot? (Or whatever.) There are definitely things we don't know, and Big Pharma is evil, but you really think that if X cured Y, it wouldn't be packaged, marketed, and profitable?"
Seems simpler to childproof his TV to block Fox News.
65: I think the sliver of truth is that sometimes there are things for various illnesses that are off patent which might work but nobody knows because there is no incentive to study it.
Like, I'm not up on the history, but I know that much of the research in lithium as a treatment for manic depressive illness was done in Denmark, and I think it was government funded. There were case reports going way back but it wasn't studied.
I think some of it is a true fucking ignorance of how much sheer knowledge is developed and stored and taught, and that it's qualitatively different than reading things which are concocted out of one person's brain and sound like knowledgology without containing knowledge.
I have two ex-boyfriends in particular that I think of: one came from a fairly fundie family, and his dad was a middle school science teacher, and their conception of science was stuck in the catalog-all-the-varieties age. Like no conception that each class in each semester of college and grad school and med school is actually packed to the gills with hard-earned content, and when they'd give their smarmy "but have they ever considered this?" and because I personally didn't know the answer content-wise, I was not to be trusted when I said, "Yes. The whole scientific method is trying to poke holes in everything, over and over again."
The second ex-boyfriend was very mystic-hippie-selling-pot kind of soul. He would read tons and tons of books on mysticism and the kabbalah and the secrets of the Far East and blah blah blah. Now and then I would read these books and think, "This sounds like content - like they're using all the same vocabulary that other people would use to put content together - but there's nothing there! I can't ever get their point!" It was so baffling to me that so many people were engaged in the production and consumption of reading literature which just sounded as though it was communicating something, but wasn't actually communicating anything.
"but have they ever considered this?"
Graduate seminars were just the worst for that.
Here is my response, assuming he doesn't read eclectic web logs:
They start with true things about the history of it, then omit a bunch of stuff like that there are dozens of drugs that work in cells alone but failed in animals. They misstate things (all 13 studies did not show an effect, only 8). The Mexico map was recolored from a government figure to make it look more dramatic. The India stats cut off at January, before their enormous surge in March of this year when the Ivermectin state was just as bad as the rest of India.
Then it goes way off the rails in the conspiracy theory part. Fauci does not decide what studies get funding, there's a whole other part of NIH (CSR) that runs grant reviews. And NIAID funds hundreds of studies on different drugs. The thing about the committee chairs actually being funded and hiding it is complete garbage. They spoke at a conference where Gilead was a sponsor, they don't get any funding from that. I've spoken at conferences with a dozen sponsors which has nothing to do with me getting any funding from them. Like investor conferences you've gone to- would you say the event sponsors are secretly funding you?
I guess my larger question is why people always think that there's some secret thing no one else thought of or that is being nefariously hidden (like happened with HCQ, which when a formal study was done showed negative outcomes.) Do they think all the people in on the "conspiracy" really- NIH, media, tech- benefit from hiding something that would "end the pandemic"? For what, a couple hundred thousand dollars of research funding or maybe a free croissant at a conference?
This video shows the way that conspiracy theories are built- start with truth (Ivm won the Nobel prize), then present some complicated things that sound plausible but ignore contradictory facts or misstates statistics, then make it sound like someone is benefitting financially, the make you mad because they're hurting you. This is the method Fox News uses all the time- present some misleading story, make it you vs them, and only Fox will tell you the truth regardless of what "experts" say- they're just in on it if course!
One other point- it's entirely possible it will be shown to have a benefit in which case I'm confident the official guidance will change. Once HCQ was formally studied it showed no benefit and arguments about it have mostly gone away. But if there were some "secret" medicine that showed anywhere near the safety and efficacy of the vaccines people would justifiably be going insane trying to get it. Instead the same groups that promote "secret" treatments also downplay or lie about vaccines, which makes me question their motivation and scientific judgment. Tucker Carlson has been telling his audience to break the law and buy forged vaccine cards at the same time he's promoting ivermectin which shows he doesn't really care about spread of disease but instead about making it a political battle.
69.last: The politics is key. People who want the Republicans back in power deliberately prevented Biden from having a successful response to covid by making sure covid would blow-up. It's all benefit to them and no downside. The people dying are mostly poor and not voting or they are Republican voters in states where the margin is so great it doesn't matter.
or they are Republican voters in states where the margin is so great it doesn't matter.
I don't think they care whatsoever about anything but a short term consequence, but for what it's worth, I don't think this is true. There's no way to distinguish Republicans in razor-thin margin states from those in ruby-red states when you're blasting out your message from Fox News.
And I agree they probably aren't thinking past 2024, but anti-vaccine stuff didn't gain traction until after most of the better-off old people were vaccinated and the urban and suburban unvaccinated are disproportionately not white people in the purples states. Also, Facebook lets you target better than Fox.
69: What's your wife's relationship with her mother like? She must be experiencing so much grief because of this about her father.
Hoo boy- this is all because her mother died five years ago and her dad is now with someone who is the reason he watches six hours of Fox News a day and sends me "interesting" things he hears from her friends on Facebook. Although his extended family is also on the crazy end of the political spectrum.
74: My sympathies to you and her both.
I kind of wonder if I'm making this better or worse. V, a Facebook friend of mine from high school, shared at least two anti-vaccination, pro-"freedom" posts. I had responses to them that were sarcastic at best. My last one was calling the shots for polio and smallpox totalitarian if I remember correctly. At the same time, V has also shared that meme of a RBG quote about abortion written in her robe. She's not completely unreachable, she's just listening to the wrong people about this. But I'm more comfortable arguing about this online than I was about some things.
Hey New Yorkers- please consider contacting Schumer about the SSI fix that disability advocates want put in the Build Back Better Reconciliation bill.