I believe it’s spelled Gilead.
3 Likes
Ironic because even right-wing anti-government types have always considered the “right to travel freely” as a fundamental right that governments can’t infringe on.
And I think it’s pretty well established that a person can’t be detained and questioned without reasonable suspicion that they’re engaged in criminal activity. Even if lawfully detained, of course you do not have to answer questions or cooperate with any investigation.
1 Like
Like all freedoms, it’s for the white Right people only.
Yes but remember that the FUCK YOU clause has supremacy currently.
This has been ongoing for the past week or so:
Cox sued the state and got permission from a district court judge to get an abortion, Ken Paxton said he didn’t care about that judge’s ruling and would sue the shit out of anyone providing an abortion, and then Texas Supreme Court quickly stayed the ruling to take it out of force for the time being.
She’s now leaving the state to get an abortion elsewhere, so this is a fun ordeal Texas is heaping on top of the general trauma of losing a wanted pregnancy after carrying it for over four months.
under the texas bounty law, any uber driver, airline pilot, gas station attendant who sells her gas, etc to get out of the state could be on the hook for $10k, right?
Yeah, maybe a subplot to this will be Texas trying to make an example out of anyone involved (including her doctor). Paxton already suggested he would do this to doctors & hospitals if she did get an abortion in Texas while a court order said she could:
But, because of the precedent that such an order could create, Paxton fought back on multiple fronts that day. First, he sent out a letter to hospitals, in essence, saying that the TRO would not protect them from prosecution. Specifically, in part, he noted, that “the TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.” He also, in the end of the letter, relitigated the question of whether Cox qualifies for the medical exceptions under Texas’s abortion bans, asserting that she does not.
Fun times!
Hopefully the ads that write themselves are already being written.
1 Like
Effing unbelievable. Wtf qualifies? They think god is going to cure the fetus of a lethal chromosomal defect? That can be the only conceivable excuse (which is frickin magic beans).
If the texass legislature didn’t provide a reasonably objective standard then the whole gd law is invalid. Oh with they did. It’s “die bitch die”.
In Texas’ abortion ban, the health exception is limited to situations where there is “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that […] poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced” (source)
I don’t think “substantial impairment” or “major bodily function” are defined in the law. Cox’s lawyers have argued that her case should fall under the exception but it seems like an open legal question (does it meet the requirement of being “life-threatening”?).
So the baby’s health is not a factor. The religious fanatics that craft these laws hate to interfere with “God’s will”. If your pregnancy will inevitably end in a stillbirth, so be it. If your baby has a genetic defect and will live only a few hours or days (in pain), so be it. (This attitude also impacts euthanasia; they talk about protecting life “from conception to natural death”.)
Dems should be leaning hard into all of this, starting now. It’s a winning issue.
2 Likes
Yeah I from what I’ve read seems likely the Texas AG and TX Supreme Court are applying the law as intended. I believe the patients team arguing that the fact she has 2x cesarean hx means carrying the baby to term poses these severe risks. However (as far as I know) no doctor would be proactively advising someone with a fetus that was expected to survive to get an abortion on account of those same risks so as far as the law is concerned she probably not meeting whatever hypothetical level of risk they require
1 Like
NBC wrote an article about your exact question:
I opened the text of the bill and ctrl+F’d for “10,000” and found this language describing who can be sued:
…knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
violation of this subchapter
Bolding is mine. IANAL but seems pretty hard to say that Texas can declare abortions illegal in other states (I know, not that that would stop conservative dipshits from trying, but lol). So there’s all the legal expertise you need, dunno why NBC didn’t just ask me.
1 Like
California doesn’t technically declare unethically raised pork etc as illegal but they sure as fuck changed the entire pork market as soon as they decided that you couldnt sell it here. An example of yay capitalism, but yay capitalism easily turns to boooo capitalism when the texas AG can say to a nationwide company like CVS “you cant provide birth control or family planning meds here” or can easily request and receive data of those that do, even if they’re not in the state. This isn’t even a made up hypothetical it’s basically already happening. What do you think companies will do in situations like this? stand up for what’s right? I do not think so.
Predictability, natural miscarriage is now a crime, too.
One thing is reading about te case and a different one is hearing from Kate Cox directly in the first 10 minutes of this podcast.
It is heartbreaking, and I can’t imagine the trauma for the thousands of women and couples who have to go through the same thing since Roe v Wade was overturned.
2 Likes
There is no sane reading of EMTALA where not providing an abortion for someone with a septic inevitable abortion would be ok, but the fifth circuit says so
1 Like
What is this saying? The law says ERs have to treat patients that need care, and the government says (obviously) that might include abortions if a patient’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, and the 5th circuit is like “lol no it doesn’t”?
They just keep on digging… Seriously every time a Democratic candidate within 50 feet of a camera doesn’t loop the conversation back to the right wanting to kill women, force us to have children, and generally make a police state out of our bedrooms they should suffer a mild electric shock from now until election day.
3 Likes
Yeah pretty much. EMTALA requires not only ERs, but every hospital that takes medicare, to stabilize any emergency that walks through their doors. If they aren’t able to stabilize because they don’t have a specialist or whatever, they can transfer under a certain set of circumstances.
There’s plenty of situations where an abortion is medically indicated to stabilize an emergency after 6 weeks, this sure seems like a slam dunk case. Haven’t read their judgment because fuck them.
1 Like