Texas Abortion Law Challenged By Federal Lawsuit

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,
Plenty of people believe that, but it is not reality based. It is a chicken/egg thing. Sure, most impoverished people would score below the successful on an IQ test, but the pertinent question is: Which came first? Does stupidity cause poverty? Or does poverty cause stupidity.

I would postulate both. While this is anecdotal, it does give pause to wonder... Some friends of my mother through her church were a couple both of whom had advanced degrees in fields of chemistry and such and worked in developing new products. Lots of education, very successful, and quite smart. They adopted two girls as infants from their birth mother in Guatemala and brought them to the US where they grew up in a home with considerable means to succeed. Yet, both were mediocre at academics and eventually had issues with drugs and ended up in relative poverty.

That's hardly the only case of that either. Anyway, I think it's a combination of both. You can be born stupid and that's hard to get around. Some manage, most don't. You can also end up stupid due entirely to your economic and social environment. That is, it isn't one or the other but a combination of the two.

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

How is that working out as a solution?

It obviously isn't.

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

I would postulate both. While this is anecdotal, it does give pause to wonder... Some friends of my mother through her church were a couple both of whom had advanced degrees in fields of chemistry and such and worked in developing new products. Lots of education, very successful, and quite smart. They adopted two girls as infants from their birth mother in Guatemala and brought them to the US where they grew up in a home with considerable means to succeed. Yet, both were mediocre at academics and eventually had issues with drugs and ended up in relative poverty.

That's hardly the only case of that either. Anyway, I think it's a combination of both. You can be born stupid and that's hard to get around. Some manage, most don't. You can also end up stupid due entirely to your economic and social environment. That is, it isn't one or the other but a combination of the two.

That anecdote is an exception, not the rule. If the mother did drugs during pregnancy it could have that result. Regardless of why that happened, it is just as you say. It's anecdotal.

I have no doubt that an equal number of anecdotes could be found that turned out differently. Infants taken out of poverty and given an upbringing of opportunity and encouragement who turned out quite successful.

Poverty is a big challenge, but it is one we must face. The poor are largely powerless to do anything about the circumstances they were born into. The successful have the collective power to do something about poverty, and it is in their interest to do so. Bigger economy. More productive people. Fewer dependent upon government programs. Less crime. Less expense to deal with crime and incarceration. It is foolish to assume nothing can be done and blame the poor for their own condition.

It's not like the impoverished choose a life of poverty. They simply do not know any better, and have no ability to change their condition.

[PoliTalker]

It obviously isn't.

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

There is no double jeopardy in civil cases. I have not read the entire new law, but to my understanding, just because someone has already been tried civilly for an incident, there is nothing to prevent them from being sued again by another plaintiff for the same incident. Unless the new Texas law rules that out, I don't see what would prevent it.

I believe the Texas law rules that out (if I understand the following provision):

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 subchapter, or for the
	particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or
	induced in violation of this subchapter.

"Private citizens also do not need to have evidence that the abortion took place after six weeks to file a suit, so legal abortions — conducted before six weeks — are also vulnerable to these expensive civil suits."

Politalker, I see nothing in the law that would allow a suit before the six weeks period. It would seem a waste of time since the person would obviously lose the case and the law allows the prevailing party to recover lawyer's fees.

Text of the law: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

I believe the Texas law rules that out (if I understand the following provision):

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 subchapter, or for the
	particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or
	induced in violation of this subchapter.

Good. Glad to see that is ruled out. Thanks.

So I guess it becomes a race to see who can get the first suit filed. And, of course, filing is one thing. Getting a ruling and a payment is another.

Politalker, I see nothing in the law that would allow a suit before the six weeks period. It would seem a waste of time since the person would obviously lose the case and the law allows the prevailing party to recover lawyer's fees.

Text of the law: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961

Yeah, but does it rule it out?

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

So I guess it becomes a race to see who can get the first suit filed. And, of course, filing is one thing. Getting a ruling and a payment is another.

Yeah, but does it rule it out?

I see nothing about time except the four year limit on filing suit.

Although the state tried to avoid the constitutional question by not allowing any state officials to enforce the law, it seems like the Texas state courts are essentially enforcing the law by imposing the $10,000 fine.

[Flash]

I would postulate both. While this is anecdotal, it does give pause to wonder... Some friends of my mother through her church were a couple both of whom had advanced degrees in fields of chemistry and such and worked in developing new products. Lots of education, very successful, and quite smart. They adopted two girls as infants from their birth mother in Guatemala and brought them to the US where they grew up in a home with considerable means to succeed. Yet, both were mediocre at academics and eventually had issues with drugs and ended up in relative poverty.

That's hardly the only case of that either. Anyway, I think it's a combination of both. You can be born stupid and that's hard to get around. Some manage, most don't. You can also end up stupid due entirely to your economic and social environment. That is, it isn't one or the other but a combination of the two.

In studying the influence of genes vs environment there are some interesting studies involving identical twins who grew up in separate environments.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Politalker, I see nothing in the law that would allow a suit before the six weeks period. It would seem a waste of time since the person would obviously lose the case and the law allows the prevailing party to recover lawyer's fees.

Text of the law: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961

You need to read the law closer.

(i) Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award
costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or
any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004,
Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this
section.

A defendant sued under the statute can't recover their costs or attorney fees.

Then further according it talks about attempts to sue to stop the law.

Sec. 30.022. AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IN ACTIONS
CHALLENGING ABORTION LAWS. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any
person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks
declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political
subdivision, any governmental entity or public official in this
state, or any person in this state from enforcing any statute,
ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that
regulates or restricts abortion or that limits taxpayer funding for
individuals or entities that perform or promote abortions, in any
state or federal court, or that represents any litigant seeking
such relief in any state or federal court, is jointly and severally
liable to pay the costs and attorney's fees of the prevailing party.

It states that any entity that challenges the law is required to pay the attorney fees of the prevailing party. So if they lose they pay for both sides. If they win they have to pay for their side.

The law is written so anyone defending an abortion cannot recover costs or attorney fees if they win.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hello Flash,



Good. Glad to see that is ruled out. Thanks.

So I guess it becomes a race to see who can get the first suit filed. And, of course, filing is one thing. Getting a ruling and a payment is another.




Yeah, but does it rule it out?

But what this doesn't rule out is multiple lawsuits if the defendant wins. It only stops them if the defendant has lost a lawsuit.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Poor Richard Saunders,

But what this doesn't rule out is multiple lawsuits if the defendant wins. It only stops them if the defendant has lost a lawsuit.

Sounds like Merrick Garland has a lot to work with.

[Flash]

You need to read the law closer.
A defendant sued under the statute can't recover their costs or attorney fees.

Then further according it talks about attempts to sue to stop the law.

It states that any entity that challenges the law is required to pay the attorney fees of the prevailing party. So if they lose they pay for both sides. If they win they have to pay for their side.

The law is written so anyone defending an abortion cannot recover costs or attorney fees if they win.

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess if there was no fetal heartbeat the defendant isn't going to have to pay the fine and is just out attorney's fees (they need to find a cheap lawyer). I would guess any lawsuits are going to be against those with money like the abortion clinic or the doctor who will have access to attorneys. Somebody who assisted (driving them to the clinic) probably won't have enough money to be worthwhile to sue.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hello Poor Richard Saunders,



Sounds like Merrick Garland has a lot to work with.

The funny part about the DoJ lawsuit is in the lawsuit they specifically ask the court to require Texas to pay all the costs incurred by the DoJ.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hello Poor Richard Saunders,



Sounds like Merrick Garland has a lot to work with.

The strongest part of the lawsuit is probably the supremacy clause. The Federal government acts as insurer for a lot of people in Texas, from NASA to the military. The law says insurers can be sued if they cover abortions. Federal regulations requires that abortions be covered as part of the coverage.

The Federal government as an insurer contracts out the care for those it insures. This interferes directly with the care that the insured can receive since Texas is now attempting to restrict what the Federal contractors can do in direct contradiction to the Federal contracts with those providers.

It's going to be pretty hard for a Federal court to not put an injunction on this law for those reasons.

The suit can be found here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/conte...nline_manual_5

The lawsuit also cites several Texas lawmakers promoting and concocting this "scheme" to clearly violate the Constitution.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Poor Richard Saunders,

The funny part about the DoJ lawsuit is in the lawsuit they specifically ask the court to require Texas to pay all the costs incurred by the DoJ.

Well it's cute that the Texas law attempts to prevent that, but if the law is thrown out then so is the prevention.