This once upon a time Alabama practicing attorney tries to imagine legions of self-righteous pro-lifers shutting down the Texas courts, which have not the personnel nor judges to process legions of private bounty hunter lawsuits.
I try to imagine the self-righteous pro-lifers proving in court that a woman who went to Planned Parenthood, …
This once upon a time Alabama practicing attorney tries to imagine legions of self-righteous pro-lifers shutting down the Texas courts, which have not the personnel nor judges to process legions of private bounty hunter lawsuits.
I try to imagine the self-righteous pro-lifers proving in court that a woman who went to Planned Parenthood, or anywhere, actually had an abortion there. Aren't medical records privileged?
What lawyer would take such a case with only a possible $10,000 bounty reward? Perhaps a lawyer who had hundreds of such cases on a 50 percent contingency fee.
If I were a lawyer defending such cases, I would put the self-righteous plaintiffs on the witness stand and ask them if they are Christians?
After they say, Yes, I ask them if they ever raised on their dime an unwanted baby to prevent an abortion?
After they say, No, I ask them if they ever offered to raise on their dime an unwanted child to prevent an abortion?
After they say, No, I ask them if they are not guilty of not trying to save unwanted babies, thus they killed the unwanted babies?
After they say, No, I ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the plaintiffs' sworn testimony that they are guilty of killing unwanted babies.
If the judge then gleefully dismisses the lawsuits, the plaintiffs can appeal.
If the judge ignores the evidence and does not dismiss the lawsuits, I ask the plaintiffs if they if read the Bible?
After they say, Yes, I ask them if the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God?
After they say, Yes, I hand them a New King James Bible and ask them to open it to Genesis 2:7 and read it to the court:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
I ask the judge to dismiss, based on the plaintiffs' sworn testimony life begins with the first breath of life.
If the judge gleefully rules against the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs can appeal.
If the judge ignores the evidence and rules with the plaintiffs, then I file the appeals.
I get on Oprah.
NPR has me on the air.
I am vilified on FOX News.
I am preached and prophesied against in evangelical churches.
I am shot and killed leaving the courthouse.
The shooter claims it was to prevent me killing any more babies.
The State Attorney prosecutes me in the grave.
I put the State Attorney on the witness stand and ask if he/she's a Christian?
Texas lawyers and pro se defendants adopt my legal strategy.
The Texas courts are choked to death and unable to handle other kinds of cases.
FOX News and he Christian right go haywire.
The US Supreme Court gets a chance to rule on Genesis 2:7.
Once upon a time, Jane Pauley interviewed me on TODAY about my first book, HOME BUYERS: Lambs to the Slaughter? Later, CNN and CBS Morning News interviewed me about my 3rd book, KILL ALL THE LAWYERS? A Clients Guide to Hiring, Firing, Using and Suing Lawyers. All was in italics.
I do not know Oprah or anyone who works for her. Heck, for more than a year I've been asking all my friends to give me a nice introduction to Lawrence O'Donnell, and nothing has come from that yet, either!
My bet is that Oprah knows about Heather. My suggestion is contact Gayle King who works at CBS, I think cohosting their morning show. Gayle and Oprah are besties.
Hi, Stuart. I gave Sloan the option for that and thought he'd jump at the chance, selecting 'plagiarized' to garner some more attention. Why don't you pick the categories that you think apply to your style?
False modesty precludes the possibily of A, H, G and J of course and an inevitable desire for contradictory praise pushes towards B, C and D but i think I'll leave it to others to respond while hoping from time to time that I excel in all categories without necessarily steadily dominating or staying with any of them. Variety is supposed to be the spice of life, Fern. I like joining in the fun, provoking from time to time, informing as much as possible and helping people rise above themselves all the time. Facts and their oft intuitive analysis are always the base rock on which i, like you, wish to stand. Well expressed, they help more people get there.
I feel facts, sometimes, too much. Your reply veers very near Sloan for comedy. Modesty began to disappear after you wrote the letter D, but we stand together on some rock somewhere!
Heh, well, I certainly plagiarized Genesis 2:7. As far as I know, I'm the only person who keeps putting that passage to the religious right. Started doing it in, mmmm, 1994.
Sloan, What do you think -- a counterfeit TONY Award medallion for plagiarism, a scale of injustice plaque for your humor and a sweet treat of your choice for originality?
Well played, sir. I particularly like the Genesis quote with life conferred by the first breath. But... The primary problem I'm seeing is the new law works less as legal mechanism than as a powerful disincentive for any woman to consider getting an abortion, since even making an inquiry puts her at risk of exposure. As well as the bind it puts on any Dr.'s office or facility that offers the procedure, since they now become sitting duck targets of lawsuits. Which will encourage them to cease providing that care, at least until there is some clarity on how to proceed. This law is particularly insidious in multiple ways. I'm not fully aware of its status in regard to the Supreme Court, it seems they simply decided not to decide - yet. I can't imagine it will be allowed to stand once they do. There are, of course, more restrictions coming, as the anti-women's health crowd see their opportunity with the current trump stacked court. The best hope to retain women's medical and privacy rights seems to be Republicans' fear of a popular backlash against their invasive rule-making causing them electoral losses.
As I understand it, the law does not target the woman herself. Some great websites have popped up seemingly overnight. This one was shared by another commenter here: www.needabortion.org
I think you're right. The law still works on a psychological level of fear though. Who can a woman turn to for assistance, when even asking can endanger someone else?
Her healthcare providers. They are legally obligated by HIPAA to protect her healthcare info. Also it’s for $$ not jail time or bodily harm and as Sloan says, it will be a slow slog thru the courts and hopefully by the time any payment is legally determined due it will all be taken care of constitutionally? I don’t have a grasp on all of it but this is what it appears to be.
From reader comments under my comment, it appears abortion providers in Texas have, in the main, stopped providing abortions because of the statute. I can imagine that was what the makers and backers of the statute hoped would happen. Perhaps Lady Karma will see to it that, in their next lifetimes, the makers and backers will be unwanted children in Afghanistan and similar places.
Long time ago and far, far away I grew up in an evangelical church in Wheaton, IL. I love the Genesis 2:7 quote, especially from the "old translation" King James (maybe a gay king). As a teen I even remember that my home church was for making abortion legal, before tricky dick used it to try and split the Roman Catholics. We even were taught that you shouldn't marry a Catholic but my first serious girlfriend was a Catholic so I guess that is were I joined the lost souls.
Long time ago and far, far away I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and my mother finally bolted that church and took me and my siblings with her to a newly formed Episcopal church, and all hell broke loose from her parents and my father's parents and their Baptist ministers, as if my mother had damned herself and her children to hell. Abortion was not an issue back then. By and by, after several passes, I drifted away from churches, and eventually I came to wonder when am I ever not in church? We are in church right now, aren't we?
I meant literally how the lawsuits could be defended by Texas attorneys and/or pro se defendants in civil lawsuits brought under this statute. Such an insurgency could make the Texas civil courts a giant international circus. The U.S. Supreme Court would be hard pressed not to take the case and rule on the statute and on Genesis 2:7.
In my dreaming world, everyone woman in Texas who seeks an abortion and everyone who even tangentially assists them would post public notice of what they've done to make sure there's a huge wave of such cases in the courts. And if the Texas bigots decline to bring suit for all of them, then the friends and spouses of the "offenders" should bring those suits to make sure that Texas courts never again hear another case on any other subject.
Regardless of what happens to the Texas court system, it might be a lot harder for a while, or for a long while, to get abortions in Texas, and it's getting the abortion that triggers the statute and its bounty hunting remedies and penalties. I imagine other red spectrum states will pass similar or same law.
Meanwhile desperate women are left alone again, providers disappearing, empathic counsel threatened, the moralizing field day grinding them down further. No exclusion for RAPE or INCEST?? They’ve gone mad.
Now there’s an interesting thought. Strength in solidarity and at the same time annihilating the shame. In this generation, I can definitely see women who are ready for that.
Absolutely, LK. If you think the Arizona Cyber Ninjas are slow, you should get a look at some courts' dockets, especially now in the midst of our pandemic!
For what it's worth, I think most Christians would counter your initial argument with Jeremiah 1:5, rather than Genesis 2:7. Jeremiah 1:5 is the scripture most frequently cited in anti-abortion arguments - "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee..." Now, of course, the rest of the scripture refers to Jeremiah's pre-ordained calling to be a prophet, but as so often happens, scripture is taken out of context to prove a point. In this case, Christians, at least evangelical Christians use Jeremiah 1:5 to prove that life begins at conception (or even before!). Although I am personally a pro-life Christian (and I mean pro-life, as opposed to the narrow anti-abortion mind-set) I am heartily opposed to the new Texas law and to any attempts to overturn RvW.
Jeremiah 1:5 is about God knowing the soul before it became a human being. Christians tend to read the Bible to suit their perspectives. But since you raised that from Jerimiah, I will ask when does the soul attach to a fetus? Just because it has a heartbeat, does it have a soul? Isn't having a soul what separates human beings from animals? does a soul attach to an embryo? Or, does a soul attach when the embryo is born and takes the first breath of life? I dare anyone to dare to say they know then a soul attaches.
Well, I wasn't expecting a theological debate, nor was I attempting to initiate one. But since you raise the question of souls, from a purely anatomical perspective who can prove that there is even such a thing as a soul, let alone say they know at what point a soul enters a body.
If you lived in my skin a little while, you'd know for a fact that souls exist, and angels, and demons, and God, and the Devil. I have seen ETs, they exist. But that's a bit afield from the Texas anti-abortion statute, which is the handiwork of Christian fanatics, so I meet them on their home turf (they think) and give them their own scriptures and doctrines beliefs in ways that are not convenient to them.
Sloan, I do believe in God, and angels, the devil, and demons from having lived in my own skin, but you're correct - this is all far afield from the statute in question, which violates civil rights and demonstrates the unwillingness of the SCOTUS to uphold the minimal gains that have been achieved in the fight for civil rights.
My a bit cheeky comment, which stirred far more discussion than anything I had published anywhere online, was my best shot at how to go about dealing with the Texas statute on the frontline in Texas. I am willing to bet the ranch that I'm the only lawyer (albeit no longer practicing) in America who even dreamed of taking the approach in court, which I suggested.
This really is about religion, plain and simple. The other side are fanatics, in my opinion. So, I meet them on what they consider their turf, and I put inconvenient facts and questions to them, which are based on their own scriptures and beliefs. Imagine me being allowed to do that on Oprah, NPR, Anderson Cooper, Tucker Carlsen. Bashing them with Genesis 2:7. Asking them when a soul attaches? And when they dare to quote science, I remind them they rejected science during the Covid pandemic; and they rejected evolution theory; the Bible is their science.
There is yet another court, in which everyone stands trial. That court is not of this world. I stand on trial in that court every day of my life. The judges there are not human beings. Their rulings and sentences play out in their own way and time. Karma is very real; sometimes it is quick, sometimes it takes a while.
I heard last night that blue states are considering passing similar bounty hunter laws aimed at people who own illegal guns, and that is freaking out conservative Republicans. Perhaps that threat might influence the very religious justices on the Supreme Court, if it ends up having to deal with the Texas anti-abortion statute?
Meanwhile, mental, emotional and spiritual mayhem perhaps well describes the Texas statute's impact in Texas. Perhaps the ACLU, the National Women's Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc., will file lawsuits in Texas, challenging the statute. Or, what about armed insurrection? Well, perhaps not in Texas, where red spectrum folks probably have many more guns than blue spectrum folks.
Shush, you could get burned at the stake in some places for saying that :-)
I think the issue is sentient beings, are animals sentient compared to humans? Perhaps dolphins and whales are, or even more sentient? There was a Star Trek film about that, wasn't there? :-)
Humans have not turned out very expert in judging the sentience of others (starting with women but not ending there) and now scientists are studying the sentience and communication powers of plants. Life is sentient.
Humans indeed have gone down many rabbit holes, but I wonder from your words if you think fetuses are sentient and therefore never should be aborted therefore?
Your comment Sloan brings to mind "To Kill a Mockingbird." I imagine your line of questioning will be objected to by the plaintiff's attorney, and the judge will immediately sustain.
Regarding compensation, there is no shortage of ambulance-chaser-type attorneys who will make fast work of monetizing the bounty hunters against abortionist sinners. Let's not forget, that this law denies equal protection under the law because even defendants who win are denied reimbursement for legal costs. This opens the door to frivolous lawsuits.
I'm guessing, there won't be many cases after the first few when defendants realize that it's pointless to mount a defense in a "legal" system that is hell-bent on punishing them.
Imagine the lives of the defendants. Undoubtedly some of the cases, especially the early ones, will be publicized. Some sanctimonious right wingers somewhere will go further and publish the names of all to shame them.
Yeah, literal vigilante since may R majority states have passed laws allowing guns ANYWHERE including schools and polling places. If other states do likewise in regards to voting, I can easily imagine a Proud Boy with his AK 47 slung over his shoulder and loudly saying something like "Boy, I hope none of these voters make an error on their ballots since they can be sued." Intimidation much?
Heh, I'm Alabama born and raised. To Kill a Mockingbird is maybe the most important novel ever written in America. Yes, I might very well meet that kind of judge in some Texas courtrooms. Hopefully, Texas has other kinds of judges, too. This statute opens the doors of Hell in my opinion. I mean that in the full Biblical sense.
Some days I hope a sniper would take me out and save me from dying of various old age ailments creeping up on me faster now. It really pisses me off that so-called Christians against abortion do not line the block around Planned Parenthood, for just one example, betting to adopt and raise on their dimes, pregnant women's unwanted future babies.
Sloan, I am so glad to have asked the questions I asked, and that you answered the ones I didn't ask but would have if I had thought of them. Thank you so much!
I wondered about this. Plus the funding of it. My understanding is that the 10K truly is the bounty paid to the person making the complaint. The legal fees are also pain in addition to that. I was surprised that clinics stopped providing services at midnight. Is it legal for private fascist donors to pay these bounties and legal fees? Surely Texas tax payers will not stand for it. And yes, frivolous suits clogging up the real justice work?? How will that go over?
I just reported Cecelia Abbott for getting an abortion. When asked how I know, I say that I'm the one who got her preggers. Y'know, that's what guys do...
My guess is that Texas isn't really expecting citizens to act as vigilantes, because many abortion providers will cease performing procedures, and pregnant women will be afraid to seek abortions. As pointed out, this will open the door for other repressive laws, though, and I believe that's the point.
Yes, elections are the best hope, however threatened they may be, if not the only hope, short of a disuniting of the supposedly united states of America. Trouble with 'disuniting' or 'fracturing' as mentioned above is that the split lacks geographic boundaries as the 1861 attempted split did. Where is the 'fracture line' in a State, or a nation for that matter, that is split 60-40? I do not expect an answer in my lifetime.
I too have been trying to figure out what a split would look like. If you're in NJ, you're good to go. But if you're in FL, not so much. Virginia is really split. The denser populated cities make us a blue state, but the rural part is very red.
I agree, Lynell. If we lose the midterms, all hopes will be dashed. BTW, I can't find the earlier post about the women's marches. I want to sign up, and it would save me some time if I could find the link.
I think you are right, Nancy. Lots of abortion providers don't want to be sued, although, not being a pregnant woman who doesn't want to carry the baby to full term, I don't know about how they might proceed. I can imagine crossing state lines, like in the old days; and various not pretty downwind outcomes, while the makers and the backers of this statute are certain where they stand with God.
Thanks, Sloan. The women who can afford to do so will probably cross state lines to find services in a more sympathetic location, although many nearby states have also greatly limited such services. The people who can't afford to leave Texas will be the most affected. Somehow, I don't believe that most of the proponents of this disgusting legislation care a whit about their standing with God. I believe the majority are patting themselves on the back, having placed a foot squarely on the back on women, and are hoping that this legislation will also restrict civil rights in many ways. They must be stopped, and I believe it is now necessary to expand the Supreme Court, as well. Hypocrites, all!
Like I said the other day, out of state providers need to take turns making house calls in Texas. Kind of like Doctors without Borders......solves the problem of women needing to travel, Texas providers getting bagged, and what can the nosy neighbors prove without health records which are protected by HIPPA?
Based on some of the reader comments here, that seems to be the effect in Texas, and I can't imagine hell pregnant Texas women who don't want to give birth already are experiencing internally, nor how they are coping, nor how it will play out later for them and, if they give birth, their children.
I don't know if or how the Texas statue rewards the bounty hunters' lawyers. Because Texas Legislature passed the statute, lawsuits brought under it cannot be viewed frivolous by the courts. I think it's probably legal for private citizens to fund these kinds of lawsuits. Based on all I read online and see on TV, the red spectrum controls most of Texas. I have learned over the years that religious fanatics cannot be reached by logic, and perhaps not even by God. What I wrote was meant to be a blueprint for an insurgency in Texas against this is private hunter law.
My understanding is that once found guilty, the defendants (spouse, clinic, friend, taxi, etc) will be required to pay the $10,000 bounty and legal fees of the accuser. This is why clinics closed so quickly. They are the most obvious target and these costs would bankrupt them.
If the defendant is found not guilty, there will be no compensation for his/her legal fees or any other compensation. Just another layer of the terror.
These clinics provide other healthcare services. All who work at the clinic would seemingly fall under HIPAA laws which should take preempt any state law? So if a woman does not share her personal health info with anyone else who is to know )in any way that can be proven). Or are they simply operating on presumption??
I misspoke. Most clinics aren’t actually closing, they have instead refused to perform abortions over 6 weeks, eliminating 75% of their business. Many had already closed due to multiple restrictions.
Ok good to know. Thank you! So private citizens with deep pockets and religious fervor can fund other private ratfinks without deep pockets but the same religious fervor? I very much appreciate your comment and response
Christy The convoluted situation that you discuss reminds me of the Abbot & Costello skit WHO’S ON FIRST, but what you raise is definitely not amusing.
The Texas statute itself funds the civil lawsuits, private backers (fanatics) can provide even more funding. I can't imagine one Texas civil court judge in his/her right mind worrying about his/her cause load exploding exponentially.
Thanks, William. I tried to use Google search to find the statute and didn't find it. In law school, it was drilled into us when we had anew case to see what the state code (statutes) had to say. Just because the lawmakers who dreamed up this statute are religious fanatics (or politicians seeking to stay in office), doesn't mean they aren't really clever. Crafty works, too. I wonder how clever, or crafty, they will feel when their roll is called up yonder?
Thank you for helping us sort thru this. I can't imagine that abortion providers would stop providing services unless this presented a real threat to them.
oops, very well could have been a Freudian slip. Once upon a time I wrote, KILL ALL THE LAWYERS? A Clients Guide to Hiring, Firing, Using and Suing Lawyers. All was in italics. Published by Prentice-Hall division of Simon & Shuster.
I've been away from internet for 3 days, so I'm late to read/respond. My understanding of the language in the Texas statute is that any person anywhere can bring suit against one who aids or abets a woman in obtaining an abortion. Perhaps we get to gumming up the courts and angering enough Texans to take action in quick order if folks from out of state start picking random Republicans and filing suit against them under this statute. Make them spend the money on expensive lawyers to defend. Under the law, there are no frivolous suits. So being a bit loose with the facts appears to be invited! Texas courts would be at a standstill pronto. As I read the statute, plaintiffs would be out the filing fee but the Republican defendants would be out-of-pocket much more and their tax dollars wasted while the courts sort it out!
I think mean the Republican Plaintiffs? Several comments under my original comment indicated abortion providers in Texas stopped providing abortions, which I think was the statute's true goal.
No. I mean to use their statute as a sword to bring Texas Civil Courts to a complete standstill. Democrat political operatives could provide the names/addresses of Republican voters. Filing fees would be a small price to pay to gum up the works BEFORE providers are sued. Let's be creative in our response to this outrageous affront by Texas and the SCt.
Sloan Bashing, I love it! Do you think your killer, who would probably us an assault rifle, claim a 2nd Amendment defense of his right to use such a rifle, since it is designed only to kill human beings?
Perhaps, but I imagine the shooter's primary defense is the law allows him to use deadly force to prevent someone from killing babies. Perhaps his face might be found in the Jan 6 Capitol mob? Perhaps he knows the QAnon shaman in that mob? Perhaps he attends a mega church in Dallas? Perhaps he becomes a national red spectrum hero and runs for Governor of Texas? Please understand, I belong to no political party and poke what seems to need poking.
This once upon a time Alabama practicing attorney tries to imagine legions of self-righteous pro-lifers shutting down the Texas courts, which have not the personnel nor judges to process legions of private bounty hunter lawsuits.
I try to imagine the self-righteous pro-lifers proving in court that a woman who went to Planned Parenthood, or anywhere, actually had an abortion there. Aren't medical records privileged?
What lawyer would take such a case with only a possible $10,000 bounty reward? Perhaps a lawyer who had hundreds of such cases on a 50 percent contingency fee.
If I were a lawyer defending such cases, I would put the self-righteous plaintiffs on the witness stand and ask them if they are Christians?
After they say, Yes, I ask them if they ever raised on their dime an unwanted baby to prevent an abortion?
After they say, No, I ask them if they ever offered to raise on their dime an unwanted child to prevent an abortion?
After they say, No, I ask them if they are not guilty of not trying to save unwanted babies, thus they killed the unwanted babies?
After they say, No, I ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the plaintiffs' sworn testimony that they are guilty of killing unwanted babies.
If the judge then gleefully dismisses the lawsuits, the plaintiffs can appeal.
If the judge ignores the evidence and does not dismiss the lawsuits, I ask the plaintiffs if they if read the Bible?
After they say, Yes, I ask them if the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God?
After they say, Yes, I hand them a New King James Bible and ask them to open it to Genesis 2:7 and read it to the court:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
I ask the judge to dismiss, based on the plaintiffs' sworn testimony life begins with the first breath of life.
If the judge gleefully rules against the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs can appeal.
If the judge ignores the evidence and rules with the plaintiffs, then I file the appeals.
I get on Oprah.
NPR has me on the air.
I am vilified on FOX News.
I am preached and prophesied against in evangelical churches.
I am shot and killed leaving the courthouse.
The shooter claims it was to prevent me killing any more babies.
The State Attorney prosecutes me in the grave.
I put the State Attorney on the witness stand and ask if he/she's a Christian?
Texas lawyers and pro se defendants adopt my legal strategy.
The Texas courts are choked to death and unable to handle other kinds of cases.
FOX News and he Christian right go haywire.
The US Supreme Court gets a chance to rule on Genesis 2:7.
I sure did enjoy this, Mr. Bashinsky! I think you should go on Oprah now!
Do you know anyone who works for Opra? :-)
Once upon a time, Jane Pauley interviewed me on TODAY about my first book, HOME BUYERS: Lambs to the Slaughter? Later, CNN and CBS Morning News interviewed me about my 3rd book, KILL ALL THE LAWYERS? A Clients Guide to Hiring, Firing, Using and Suing Lawyers. All was in italics.
Perhaps you could get on Democracy Now! and the Thom Hartmann show.
Don't know how to go about that.
You need to write a letter with descriptions to the producer. They control.
For Oprah it is the same; you can find names on web.
But to find total details, you need to be a member of IMDb pro.
I write several times to Oora some years ago and got no reply from anyone.
I do not know Oprah or anyone who works for her. Heck, for more than a year I've been asking all my friends to give me a nice introduction to Lawrence O'Donnell, and nothing has come from that yet, either!
I wonder if Heather knows Oprah?
Actually, we just learned that someone here in this forum taught Oprah when she was in, I think, junior high or high school!
This the type of entry tgat would peak her interest!!
My bet is that Oprah knows about Heather. My suggestion is contact Gayle King who works at CBS, I think cohosting their morning show. Gayle and Oprah are besties.
thanks
Yep! Would love to see that!
Sloan, I am going to request that the Forum inaugurate the LFAA annual awards show. Twelve winners will be chosen from the following categories:
a) most informative comment
b) least informative
c) most confusing
d) most irrelevant
e) snarkiest
f) kindest
g) best written
h) angriest
i) funniest
j) most original
k) more caring
l) plagiarized
I would nominate 'Sloan's Texas Cases' for three of them.
Me too...but which 3?
Hi, Stuart. I gave Sloan the option for that and thought he'd jump at the chance, selecting 'plagiarized' to garner some more attention. Why don't you pick the categories that you think apply to your style?
False modesty precludes the possibily of A, H, G and J of course and an inevitable desire for contradictory praise pushes towards B, C and D but i think I'll leave it to others to respond while hoping from time to time that I excel in all categories without necessarily steadily dominating or staying with any of them. Variety is supposed to be the spice of life, Fern. I like joining in the fun, provoking from time to time, informing as much as possible and helping people rise above themselves all the time. Facts and their oft intuitive analysis are always the base rock on which i, like you, wish to stand. Well expressed, they help more people get there.
I feel facts, sometimes, too much. Your reply veers very near Sloan for comedy. Modesty began to disappear after you wrote the letter D, but we stand together on some rock somewhere!
Kindred, complementary spirits will always find a place to stand together, Fern. It's a pleasure.
Heh, well, I certainly plagiarized Genesis 2:7. As far as I know, I'm the only person who keeps putting that passage to the religious right. Started doing it in, mmmm, 1994.
Sloan, What do you think -- a counterfeit TONY Award medallion for plagiarism, a scale of injustice plaque for your humor and a sweet treat of your choice for originality?
Heh
Thanks, Wonder how the the Texas red spectrum would vote?
The wouldn't vote because they don't come to this enlightened place.
I'm not going to get on enemy's front line. Sloan, please pick three of the categories as the 'artist's choice' and post. Thanks.
Fern, proposed it, then declined to pony up. So, here's my votes at this moment, subject to further wrinkles in space and time.
snarkiest
funniest
most original
Alternatively
most informative content
best written
most original
Well played, sir. I particularly like the Genesis quote with life conferred by the first breath. But... The primary problem I'm seeing is the new law works less as legal mechanism than as a powerful disincentive for any woman to consider getting an abortion, since even making an inquiry puts her at risk of exposure. As well as the bind it puts on any Dr.'s office or facility that offers the procedure, since they now become sitting duck targets of lawsuits. Which will encourage them to cease providing that care, at least until there is some clarity on how to proceed. This law is particularly insidious in multiple ways. I'm not fully aware of its status in regard to the Supreme Court, it seems they simply decided not to decide - yet. I can't imagine it will be allowed to stand once they do. There are, of course, more restrictions coming, as the anti-women's health crowd see their opportunity with the current trump stacked court. The best hope to retain women's medical and privacy rights seems to be Republicans' fear of a popular backlash against their invasive rule-making causing them electoral losses.
As I understand it, the law does not target the woman herself. Some great websites have popped up seemingly overnight. This one was shared by another commenter here: www.needabortion.org
I think you're right. The law still works on a psychological level of fear though. Who can a woman turn to for assistance, when even asking can endanger someone else?
Looks to me like the Devil walking on the earth, this Texas statute.
Draconian fascist law.
In case you don't know, Georgia is investigating the Texas law, to see how they can amend their heartbeat law to mimic it.
Her healthcare providers. They are legally obligated by HIPAA to protect her healthcare info. Also it’s for $$ not jail time or bodily harm and as Sloan says, it will be a slow slog thru the courts and hopefully by the time any payment is legally determined due it will all be taken care of constitutionally? I don’t have a grasp on all of it but this is what it appears to be.
I do wonder what lawyers will charge for filing and representing these bounty hunters in court?
From reader comments under my comment, it appears abortion providers in Texas have, in the main, stopped providing abortions because of the statute. I can imagine that was what the makers and backers of the statute hoped would happen. Perhaps Lady Karma will see to it that, in their next lifetimes, the makers and backers will be unwanted children in Afghanistan and similar places.
Long time ago and far, far away I grew up in an evangelical church in Wheaton, IL. I love the Genesis 2:7 quote, especially from the "old translation" King James (maybe a gay king). As a teen I even remember that my home church was for making abortion legal, before tricky dick used it to try and split the Roman Catholics. We even were taught that you shouldn't marry a Catholic but my first serious girlfriend was a Catholic so I guess that is were I joined the lost souls.
Long time ago and far, far away I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and my mother finally bolted that church and took me and my siblings with her to a newly formed Episcopal church, and all hell broke loose from her parents and my father's parents and their Baptist ministers, as if my mother had damned herself and her children to hell. Abortion was not an issue back then. By and by, after several passes, I drifted away from churches, and eventually I came to wonder when am I ever not in church? We are in church right now, aren't we?
Your mom’s rebellion served you well Sloan. ❤️
Terrific logic! And given civil suits are low priority, what are the chances that one will be heard in the next five years? Great post.
I meant literally how the lawsuits could be defended by Texas attorneys and/or pro se defendants in civil lawsuits brought under this statute. Such an insurgency could make the Texas civil courts a giant international circus. The U.S. Supreme Court would be hard pressed not to take the case and rule on the statute and on Genesis 2:7.
In my dreaming world, everyone woman in Texas who seeks an abortion and everyone who even tangentially assists them would post public notice of what they've done to make sure there's a huge wave of such cases in the courts. And if the Texas bigots decline to bring suit for all of them, then the friends and spouses of the "offenders" should bring those suits to make sure that Texas courts never again hear another case on any other subject.
Regardless of what happens to the Texas court system, it might be a lot harder for a while, or for a long while, to get abortions in Texas, and it's getting the abortion that triggers the statute and its bounty hunting remedies and penalties. I imagine other red spectrum states will pass similar or same law.
Meanwhile desperate women are left alone again, providers disappearing, empathic counsel threatened, the moralizing field day grinding them down further. No exclusion for RAPE or INCEST?? They’ve gone mad.
Now there’s an interesting thought. Strength in solidarity and at the same time annihilating the shame. In this generation, I can definitely see women who are ready for that.
Absolutely, LK. If you think the Arizona Cyber Ninjas are slow, you should get a look at some courts' dockets, especially now in the midst of our pandemic!
For what it's worth, I think most Christians would counter your initial argument with Jeremiah 1:5, rather than Genesis 2:7. Jeremiah 1:5 is the scripture most frequently cited in anti-abortion arguments - "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee..." Now, of course, the rest of the scripture refers to Jeremiah's pre-ordained calling to be a prophet, but as so often happens, scripture is taken out of context to prove a point. In this case, Christians, at least evangelical Christians use Jeremiah 1:5 to prove that life begins at conception (or even before!). Although I am personally a pro-life Christian (and I mean pro-life, as opposed to the narrow anti-abortion mind-set) I am heartily opposed to the new Texas law and to any attempts to overturn RvW.
Jeremiah 1:5 is about God knowing the soul before it became a human being. Christians tend to read the Bible to suit their perspectives. But since you raised that from Jerimiah, I will ask when does the soul attach to a fetus? Just because it has a heartbeat, does it have a soul? Isn't having a soul what separates human beings from animals? does a soul attach to an embryo? Or, does a soul attach when the embryo is born and takes the first breath of life? I dare anyone to dare to say they know then a soul attaches.
Well, I wasn't expecting a theological debate, nor was I attempting to initiate one. But since you raise the question of souls, from a purely anatomical perspective who can prove that there is even such a thing as a soul, let alone say they know at what point a soul enters a body.
If you lived in my skin a little while, you'd know for a fact that souls exist, and angels, and demons, and God, and the Devil. I have seen ETs, they exist. But that's a bit afield from the Texas anti-abortion statute, which is the handiwork of Christian fanatics, so I meet them on their home turf (they think) and give them their own scriptures and doctrines beliefs in ways that are not convenient to them.
Sloan, I do believe in God, and angels, the devil, and demons from having lived in my own skin, but you're correct - this is all far afield from the statute in question, which violates civil rights and demonstrates the unwillingness of the SCOTUS to uphold the minimal gains that have been achieved in the fight for civil rights.
My a bit cheeky comment, which stirred far more discussion than anything I had published anywhere online, was my best shot at how to go about dealing with the Texas statute on the frontline in Texas. I am willing to bet the ranch that I'm the only lawyer (albeit no longer practicing) in America who even dreamed of taking the approach in court, which I suggested.
This really is about religion, plain and simple. The other side are fanatics, in my opinion. So, I meet them on what they consider their turf, and I put inconvenient facts and questions to them, which are based on their own scriptures and beliefs. Imagine me being allowed to do that on Oprah, NPR, Anderson Cooper, Tucker Carlsen. Bashing them with Genesis 2:7. Asking them when a soul attaches? And when they dare to quote science, I remind them they rejected science during the Covid pandemic; and they rejected evolution theory; the Bible is their science.
There is yet another court, in which everyone stands trial. That court is not of this world. I stand on trial in that court every day of my life. The judges there are not human beings. Their rulings and sentences play out in their own way and time. Karma is very real; sometimes it is quick, sometimes it takes a while.
I heard last night that blue states are considering passing similar bounty hunter laws aimed at people who own illegal guns, and that is freaking out conservative Republicans. Perhaps that threat might influence the very religious justices on the Supreme Court, if it ends up having to deal with the Texas anti-abortion statute?
Meanwhile, mental, emotional and spiritual mayhem perhaps well describes the Texas statute's impact in Texas. Perhaps the ACLU, the National Women's Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc., will file lawsuits in Texas, challenging the statute. Or, what about armed insurrection? Well, perhaps not in Texas, where red spectrum folks probably have many more guns than blue spectrum folks.
If humans have souls animals do too. They’re living belngs.
Shush, you could get burned at the stake in some places for saying that :-)
I think the issue is sentient beings, are animals sentient compared to humans? Perhaps dolphins and whales are, or even more sentient? There was a Star Trek film about that, wasn't there? :-)
Humans have not turned out very expert in judging the sentience of others (starting with women but not ending there) and now scientists are studying the sentience and communication powers of plants. Life is sentient.
Humans indeed have gone down many rabbit holes, but I wonder from your words if you think fetuses are sentient and therefore never should be aborted therefore?
You rock! Join us! https://www.pacesconnection.com/blog/paces-connection-presents-the-historical-trauma-in-america-series
Will do.
Your comment Sloan brings to mind "To Kill a Mockingbird." I imagine your line of questioning will be objected to by the plaintiff's attorney, and the judge will immediately sustain.
Regarding compensation, there is no shortage of ambulance-chaser-type attorneys who will make fast work of monetizing the bounty hunters against abortionist sinners. Let's not forget, that this law denies equal protection under the law because even defendants who win are denied reimbursement for legal costs. This opens the door to frivolous lawsuits.
I'm guessing, there won't be many cases after the first few when defendants realize that it's pointless to mount a defense in a "legal" system that is hell-bent on punishing them.
Imagine the lives of the defendants. Undoubtedly some of the cases, especially the early ones, will be publicized. Some sanctimonious right wingers somewhere will go further and publish the names of all to shame them.
And to paint bullseyes on them for the more fanatical right wingers to take to a level not contemplated in the Texas statute - vigilante
Yeah, literal vigilante since may R majority states have passed laws allowing guns ANYWHERE including schools and polling places. If other states do likewise in regards to voting, I can easily imagine a Proud Boy with his AK 47 slung over his shoulder and loudly saying something like "Boy, I hope none of these voters make an error on their ballots since they can be sued." Intimidation much?
Heh, I'm Alabama born and raised. To Kill a Mockingbird is maybe the most important novel ever written in America. Yes, I might very well meet that kind of judge in some Texas courtrooms. Hopefully, Texas has other kinds of judges, too. This statute opens the doors of Hell in my opinion. I mean that in the full Biblical sense.
We named our son after Atticus Finch.
Wear a bullet proof vest. I look forward to reading more!!! Lol
Some days I hope a sniper would take me out and save me from dying of various old age ailments creeping up on me faster now. It really pisses me off that so-called Christians against abortion do not line the block around Planned Parenthood, for just one example, betting to adopt and raise on their dimes, pregnant women's unwanted future babies.
Sloan, I am so glad to have asked the questions I asked, and that you answered the ones I didn't ask but would have if I had thought of them. Thank you so much!
I wondered about this. Plus the funding of it. My understanding is that the 10K truly is the bounty paid to the person making the complaint. The legal fees are also pain in addition to that. I was surprised that clinics stopped providing services at midnight. Is it legal for private fascist donors to pay these bounties and legal fees? Surely Texas tax payers will not stand for it. And yes, frivolous suits clogging up the real justice work?? How will that go over?
I just reported Cecelia Abbott for getting an abortion. When asked how I know, I say that I'm the one who got her preggers. Y'know, that's what guys do...
naughty boy!
Dontcha know it!
My guess is that Texas isn't really expecting citizens to act as vigilantes, because many abortion providers will cease performing procedures, and pregnant women will be afraid to seek abortions. As pointed out, this will open the door for other repressive laws, though, and I believe that's the point.
I'm afraid you are right, Nancy. Our best hope is Democrats winning the 2022 election because of this.
Yes, elections are the best hope, however threatened they may be, if not the only hope, short of a disuniting of the supposedly united states of America. Trouble with 'disuniting' or 'fracturing' as mentioned above is that the split lacks geographic boundaries as the 1861 attempted split did. Where is the 'fracture line' in a State, or a nation for that matter, that is split 60-40? I do not expect an answer in my lifetime.
I too have been trying to figure out what a split would look like. If you're in NJ, you're good to go. But if you're in FL, not so much. Virginia is really split. The denser populated cities make us a blue state, but the rural part is very red.
You know who wants a split more than anything?
Russia.
I agree, Lynell. If we lose the midterms, all hopes will be dashed. BTW, I can't find the earlier post about the women's marches. I want to sign up, and it would save me some time if I could find the link.
Is this it? https://womensmarch.com/mobilize
all signed up
Bless you, Lynell! Going there now.
I think you are right, Nancy. Lots of abortion providers don't want to be sued, although, not being a pregnant woman who doesn't want to carry the baby to full term, I don't know about how they might proceed. I can imagine crossing state lines, like in the old days; and various not pretty downwind outcomes, while the makers and the backers of this statute are certain where they stand with God.
Thanks, Sloan. The women who can afford to do so will probably cross state lines to find services in a more sympathetic location, although many nearby states have also greatly limited such services. The people who can't afford to leave Texas will be the most affected. Somehow, I don't believe that most of the proponents of this disgusting legislation care a whit about their standing with God. I believe the majority are patting themselves on the back, having placed a foot squarely on the back on women, and are hoping that this legislation will also restrict civil rights in many ways. They must be stopped, and I believe it is now necessary to expand the Supreme Court, as well. Hypocrites, all!
Like I said the other day, out of state providers need to take turns making house calls in Texas. Kind of like Doctors without Borders......solves the problem of women needing to travel, Texas providers getting bagged, and what can the nosy neighbors prove without health records which are protected by HIPPA?
HIPAA. I do that every damn time.
Based on some of the reader comments here, that seems to be the effect in Texas, and I can't imagine hell pregnant Texas women who don't want to give birth already are experiencing internally, nor how they are coping, nor how it will play out later for them and, if they give birth, their children.
I don't know if or how the Texas statue rewards the bounty hunters' lawyers. Because Texas Legislature passed the statute, lawsuits brought under it cannot be viewed frivolous by the courts. I think it's probably legal for private citizens to fund these kinds of lawsuits. Based on all I read online and see on TV, the red spectrum controls most of Texas. I have learned over the years that religious fanatics cannot be reached by logic, and perhaps not even by God. What I wrote was meant to be a blueprint for an insurgency in Texas against this is private hunter law.
My understanding is that once found guilty, the defendants (spouse, clinic, friend, taxi, etc) will be required to pay the $10,000 bounty and legal fees of the accuser. This is why clinics closed so quickly. They are the most obvious target and these costs would bankrupt them.
If the defendant is found not guilty, there will be no compensation for his/her legal fees or any other compensation. Just another layer of the terror.
These clinics provide other healthcare services. All who work at the clinic would seemingly fall under HIPAA laws which should take preempt any state law? So if a woman does not share her personal health info with anyone else who is to know )in any way that can be proven). Or are they simply operating on presumption??
I misspoke. Most clinics aren’t actually closing, they have instead refused to perform abortions over 6 weeks, eliminating 75% of their business. Many had already closed due to multiple restrictions.
Ok good to know. Thank you! So private citizens with deep pockets and religious fervor can fund other private ratfinks without deep pockets but the same religious fervor? I very much appreciate your comment and response
Christy The convoluted situation that you discuss reminds me of the Abbot & Costello skit WHO’S ON FIRST, but what you raise is definitely not amusing.
The Texas statute itself funds the civil lawsuits, private backers (fanatics) can provide even more funding. I can't imagine one Texas civil court judge in his/her right mind worrying about his/her cause load exploding exponentially.
Here are the words from the statute:
If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this
section, the court shall award:
(1) injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the
defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid
or abet violations of this chapter;
(2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than
$10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced
in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or
induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or
abetted; and
(3) costs and attorney's fees.
(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award
relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection
(a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant
previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under
Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion
performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the
particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or
induced in violation of this chapter.
(d) Notwithstanding Chapter 16, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, or any other law, a person may bring an action under this
section not later than the sixth anniversary of the date the cause
of action accrues.
Thanks, William. I tried to use Google search to find the statute and didn't find it. In law school, it was drilled into us when we had anew case to see what the state code (statutes) had to say. Just because the lawmakers who dreamed up this statute are religious fanatics (or politicians seeking to stay in office), doesn't mean they aren't really clever. Crafty works, too. I wonder how clever, or crafty, they will feel when their roll is called up yonder?
Public funds, Taxpayers funding private investigations, bounty hunters, vigilantly justice and the lawsuit? Crazy.
You say tomato, I say tomatoe
You sat Crazy, I say Texan
The defendant pays the fine & costs, not the state.
not worrying about
Thank you for helping us sort thru this. I can't imagine that abortion providers would stop providing services unless this presented a real threat to them.
I was tickled by the possible Freudian slip in this part of your post: “The legal fees are also pain…”. :)
Apologies to Sloan, of course.
oops, very well could have been a Freudian slip. Once upon a time I wrote, KILL ALL THE LAWYERS? A Clients Guide to Hiring, Firing, Using and Suing Lawyers. All was in italics. Published by Prentice-Hall division of Simon & Shuster.
I've been away from internet for 3 days, so I'm late to read/respond. My understanding of the language in the Texas statute is that any person anywhere can bring suit against one who aids or abets a woman in obtaining an abortion. Perhaps we get to gumming up the courts and angering enough Texans to take action in quick order if folks from out of state start picking random Republicans and filing suit against them under this statute. Make them spend the money on expensive lawyers to defend. Under the law, there are no frivolous suits. So being a bit loose with the facts appears to be invited! Texas courts would be at a standstill pronto. As I read the statute, plaintiffs would be out the filing fee but the Republican defendants would be out-of-pocket much more and their tax dollars wasted while the courts sort it out!
I think mean the Republican Plaintiffs? Several comments under my original comment indicated abortion providers in Texas stopped providing abortions, which I think was the statute's true goal.
No. I mean to use their statute as a sword to bring Texas Civil Courts to a complete standstill. Democrat political operatives could provide the names/addresses of Republican voters. Filing fees would be a small price to pay to gum up the works BEFORE providers are sued. Let's be creative in our response to this outrageous affront by Texas and the SCt.
Sloan Bashing, I love it! Do you think your killer, who would probably us an assault rifle, claim a 2nd Amendment defense of his right to use such a rifle, since it is designed only to kill human beings?
Perhaps, but I imagine the shooter's primary defense is the law allows him to use deadly force to prevent someone from killing babies. Perhaps his face might be found in the Jan 6 Capitol mob? Perhaps he knows the QAnon shaman in that mob? Perhaps he attends a mega church in Dallas? Perhaps he becomes a national red spectrum hero and runs for Governor of Texas? Please understand, I belong to no political party and poke what seems to need poking.
Oops, sorry Sloan, I wrote your last name incorrectly. "Bashinsky", not "Bashing."
I thought it was metaphor :-)
Could be!