171.207 (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.
171.208 (2) 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;
I think that says if my girl friend asks me to drive her to the PP office to see about birth control pills, but she gets an abortion instead, I can be sued.
171.208
(e) Notwithstanding any other law, the following are not a
defense to an action brought under this section:
…
(3) a defendant ’s reliance on any court decision that
has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that
court decision had not been overruled when the defendant engaged in
conduct that violates this subchapter;
So, if a court blocks the law by an injunction, I can’t go ahead with the abortion because there is a chance that sometime in the future some court will overturn the injunction?
I predict it’s going to be a nightmare for insurance in Texas.
Med-mal rates should explode, because if a pregnant female has a non-emergency medical episode and at some point the fetus is lost, someone could allege that was really an abortion and sue every doctor and nurse involved and every facility that took part. Even if anti-SLAPP laws apply, it requires a judge to decide the lawsuit is a SLAPP [free guess on how many times that will happen] and so the entire thing will have to be litigated in court, at considerable expense to the defendants, with no recourse to recover costs.
Same with commercial liability insurance, especially any entity that touches health care. You provided bandages that were used in this operation that was an abortion, you should have known that your products would be used there so you’re complicit.
Personal liability rates will explode the first time someone gets sued, has to pay damages, then sues their insurer for refusing coverage. It will be especially true if (when) an insurer to decide they want to put in an exclusion and the DOI refuses it.
Literally, anyone who can be remotely tied to anything that sounds like an abortion can be sued. And someone is going to file a lawsuit that names half the state’s companies trying to get $10K per defendant, knowing the cost is merely whatever it takes to file a lawsuit and they don’t have to face financial penalties when it fails.
Democrats in Texas should start suing Republicans and their spouses, and maybe office aides, claiming that Republican intends to have a mistress who’ll they’ll knock up and have an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, and everyone else knew or should have known about it and didn’t do anything to prevent it.
Hey, no downside here. Those sued can’t collect damages. Possible you get lucky and collect at least $10K per, perhaps more.
Susan Collins is troubled that’s not sure if she should be deeply concerned or merely upset about this turn of events. It’s perhaps more than enough to furrow her brow, but not to the level of wringing her hands. She’s confident though that this won’t require a deep sigh, and that everyone will have learned their lesson after the fallout of whatever happens and this won’t happen again.
Those kids and their darned face place and tick rock! Always playing it on their walk-a-pods instead of rolling up their sleeves and showing a little gumption.
It will be interesting to see what mental gymnastics the court goes through when say Illinois or New York passes an anti-gun version of this law and court does it’s best to quickly strike it down while upholding the Texas abortion law.
As for the prior comment about a ride to PP and the driver didn’t know - when the suit includes the guy who fathered the child not knowing the woman would strongly consider an abortion - that’s where the thing will collapse. Start also suing the sperm “donors”.
Roe v. Wade guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, yet here we are.
Wait, are we restricting this to “the right is specifically articulated in the Constitution and/or its amendments?” OK, then we can talk about a state deciding to pass a law prohibiting individuals from disrespecting the police (an idea that’s really popular in legislatures in red states) and start tacking on all the inane ideas from this law. Suddenly, all kinds of long-established constitutional provisions rooted in 1A are out the window because it’s not clearly articulated in 1A that this right exists.
It’s the kind of logic that gave us qualified immunity and all the horseshit that’s ensued from it.
