TX Anti-Abortion Law

[neonzx]

I'm very interested to see if anyone makes the first claim for $10k. I don't think Texas has open records like Florida (Sunshine Laws), but we will see.

[Jim]

I'm very interested to see if anyone makes the first claim for $10k. I don't think Texas has open records like Florida (Sunshine Laws), but we will see.

We should hear, isn't the person required to sue in court?

[Volkonski]

[neonzx]

Wait, what? The US AGs role is to worry about Afghanistan and the world economy?

And isn't Paxton supposed to be in jail anyway?

[Slim Cognito]

I don't think the TXAG knows the difference between the State Dept, the DOJ and the Treasury.

I also am not surprised.

[neeneko]

I'm very interested to see if anyone makes the first claim for $10k. I don't think Texas has open records like Florida (Sunshine Laws), but we will see.

I imagine clinics are being extra careful right now, and since the main organization that was hoping to make use of the law is currently not allowed to, I am not surprised that disorganized individual suits are not much of a thing yet.

Though I am a bit surprised that no one has filed anything yet. There is probably a bunch of notoriety to be gained by getting your name associated with the first wave of attempts.

[Foggy]

Yeah, how come the first lawsuits haven't been filed yet?

[sugar magnolia]

Who do you file the lawsuits with? The state or ????

[Slim Cognito]

Not sure, but I think the purpose of the snitch site is to pair up snitches with attorneys willing to take them on. Yes/no?

[neeneko]

Not sure, but I think the purpose of the snitch site is to pair up snitches with attorneys willing to take them on. Yes/no?

I thought it was so the organization itself could mount a coordinated campaign of lawsuits using multiple in house lawyers.

[neeneko]

Who do you file the lawsuits with? The state or ????

By the looks of it, local county courts.

[sugar magnolia]

Who do you file the lawsuits with? The state or ????

By the looks of it, local county courts.

Seems like they would have written the law a little more clearly if they were serious about people using it. Our county courts already have such a backlog that they've hired/appointed special judges to do nothing but clear the dockets.

[neeneko]

Seems like they would have written the law a little more clearly if they were serious about people using it. Our county courts already have such a backlog that they've hired/appointed special judges to do nothing but clear the dockets.

I doubt people actually using the law was really the point. For the politicians it is purely a red meat thing, their base likes the idea of the law. For proponents though, the law's real utility comes from its chilling effect... one could even argue it is most effective if no one actually uses it and thus its target audience overestimates its power and does not want to risk becoming a target. So the more ambiguity the better.

[neeneko]

Uh.

So looks like unorganized individuals are trying to 'catch' abortion providers violating the new law:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/us/texas ... index.html

[AndyinPA]

Uh.

So looks like unorganized individuals are trying to 'catch' abortion providers violating the new law:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/us/texas ... index.html

From that link:

Renae Eze, press secretary for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, said the state passed a law "that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion," and the governor's office is confident the courts will uphold it.

Aside from the fact that there is no heart, therefore no heartbeat, at six weeks, an acorn is not an oak tree, an egg white is not a chicken, etc.

And how about you work on the ravages of childhood poverty?

[jez]

For all the lawyers (and non-lawyers):

I read a piece in the Boston Globe about Larkin v. Grendel's Den. In essence, the SCOTUS said that the state cannot delegate it's authority to a private entity. Might be a stretch, but there is some correlation with the "bounty hunters" going after people for "illegally" assisting with an abortion. Isn't that the state delegating their authority to private citizens?

[sugar magnolia]

Uh.

So looks like unorganized individuals are trying to 'catch' abortion providers violating the new law:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/us/texas ... index.html

From that link:

Renae Eze, press secretary for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, said the state passed a law "that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion," and the governor's office is confident the courts will uphold it.

Aside from the fact that there is no heart, therefore no heartbeat, at six weeks, an acorn is not an oak tree, an egg white is not a chicken, etc.

And how about you work on the ravages of childhood poverty?

Or the ravages of covid.

[AndyinPA]

For all the lawyers (and non-lawyers):

I read a piece in the Boston Globe about Larkin v. Grendel's Den. In essence, the SCOTUS said that the state cannot delegate it's authority to a private entity. Might be a stretch, but there is some correlation with the "bounty hunters" going after people for "illegally" assisting with an abortion. Isn't that the state delegating their authority to private citizens?

Rachel Maddow had a segment on that last week, and had Laurence Tribe, the attorney who took the case, on to explain it. Not an attorney, but it sounded good to me, and he won.

[Patagoniagirl]

https://www.bucklebunnies.org/

I gave. Abortions across Texas.

[Volkonski]

[RTH10260]

may need some additional explanation

ETA. about what Jez posted above Grendel's Law viewtopic.php?p=45667#p45667

How One Bar's Liquor License Case Could Bring Down The New Texas Abortion Ban

MSNBC 7 Sept 2021

Rachel Maddow tells the story of how Cambridge, Massachusetts bar, Grendel's Den, whose case to obtain a liquor license over the objections of a neighboring church was argued before the Supreme Court and won by Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, setting a precedent that could put an end to the new Texas abortion ban.

[bob]

For all the lawyers (and non-lawyers):

I read a piece in the Boston Globe about Larkin v. Grendel's Den. In essence, the SCOTUS said that the state cannot delegate it's authority to a private entity. Might be a stretch, but there is some correlation with the "bounty hunters" going after people for "illegally" assisting with an abortion. Isn't that the state delegating their authority to private citizens?

Too also: Racial covenants (prohibiting the sale of property to minorities) is a private agreement between two parties. But enforcing racial covenants requires state action (the courts). So the courts ultimately ruled it would unconstitutional to use the state's powers to enforce the covenants.

[bill_g]

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Chastity belts for guys!

[filly]