DALAS – When the strictest U.S. abortion law went into effect in Texas on September 1, it was exactly the same: It outlawed nearly all abortions in the second-most populous state.
But its simplicity – that of ordinary citizens, not government officials who enforce it – has begun to open lawsuits beyond the control of the anti-abortion movement, which fights for the law.
On Monday, lawyers with a man in Arkansas and another in Illinois with no clear ties to anti-abortion activists filed separate lawsuits against a San Antonio doctor who publicly spoke about abortion. The case appears to be the first legal action taken under a bill called Senate Bill 8 that encourages individuals, regardless of where they live, to sue doctors or other embryo collectors. “Auxiliary and Abettian” abortion after a heart attack. Activity detected.
Read also – Venom 2 full movie download in Hindi pagalmovies
Legal experts say a state lawsuit could be the most likely avenue for final clarification of the constitutionality of Texas laws faced with due process. Two other large-scale lawsuits filed by abortion providers and the Department of Justice in federal court raise difficult procedural issues.
Anti-abortion leaders in Texas say they don’t expect many people to actually file lawsuits because they believe the process will be too expensive and difficult.
“These out-of-state lawsuits are not meant to be legal,” said Chelsea Human, Texas state director and national legal counsel for the Human Coalition, an anti-abortion group, who said it had no plans to file a lawsuit. . Therapist, dr. Alan Brad, or encourage others to do the same.
“The goal is to save as many lives as possible, and the law is working,” Ms. Human, “the legal assumption is that the risk of liability will be so daunting that the supplier will simply comply.”
Abortion rights activists initially warned that the law would lead to the Wild West, where vigilante groups would prosecute anyone involved in abortion, from the driving driver to the relatives of pregnant women. The unique enforcement mechanism designed to avoid judicial review invites individuals to prosecute anyone involved in the process except a pregnant woman. If the plaintiffs win, they will receive $10,000 and their legal aid will be covered.
Everything was quiet until Saturday when Dr. Brad wrote in the Washington Post that on September 6, he aborted a woman who “crossed a new state line.” He knows he sued, wrote it down, and took personal risks, but I firmly believe it.
Mark Heron, senior adviser to the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights group that Dr. Brad represented, saying doctors detected cardiac activity before the abortion, meaning the procedure was actually against the new US law. Wounded.
Both lawsuits allow Dr. Brad and his agents argue that the law is in Rowe vs. Wade, which gives women a constitutional right to abortion, and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which upholds it. If these defenses are upheld on appeal, legal experts believe the cases could set a precedent that would effectively override Texas law – a significant loss to the anti-abortion movement.
From the perspective of the anti-abortion movement, neither of the two men who filed suit this week are ideal plaintiffs. Arkansas man Oscar Steele, who described himself as a “destruction and defamation” attorney in his case, said he was “not a life supporter” and simply wanted to “discredit” the law. The Illinois man, Felipe N. Gomez, referred to himself as the “plaintiff’s attorney” in his lawsuit.
Youman hypothesized that the complaint was a “plant” and told Dr. Brad’s essay as an attempt to imply a reckless process that would challenge the constitutionality of the law in court.
Gomez, 61, said in an interview that she had decided to file a lawsuit to challenge what she believes is government interference in private health decisions. Describing himself as a “choice” on a number of medical questions, he wondered why some proponents of Texas’s new abortion restrictions favor a mandate for pregnant women while the government calls for a vaccine to combat the coronavirus pandemic. He also opposed the mandate. (Mr Gomez says he personally dislikes lifelong injecting needles and does not support the vaccination mandate.)
He also said he filed the case as part of a “legal public interest hobby” that he hopes will continue into his future retirement. Mr. Gomez was removed from his Illinois law practice due to emails to another attorney; He admitted that he is currently running the process.
The scene in the Wild West that activists warned about the right to abortion has yet to happen. After the law was passed – hailed as a clear victory by the anti-abortion movement – clinics across the country immediately said they would comply; Some reported that they had temporarily stopped all abortions.
John Seego, the group’s legislative director, said that was enough for the anti-abortion group, including the right to live in Texas. In the three weeks since the law came into effect, “we have no evidence of misconduct,” he said, adding that the group estimates “more than 2,000 lives have so far been saved by the Texas Heart Rate Act.”
The group advocating for the new law created a website to warn people to submit anonymous proposals about illegal abortions. He received a steady stream of false advice and the group worked on “extra security” after switching servers before restoring the site, Seego said.
Mr Sigo said the state’s anti-abortion movement was unanimous in his warning of Brad’s vague but prominent message about his abuses. “He didn’t say the information:” I’m a job, who wants an abortion, that’s my address, make an appointment, “he said. That’s a lot more billed than that.”