TX Ob-gyn sued for performing abortion

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Dr. Alan Braid, a San Antonio OB-GYN who staffs an abortion clinic, performed a termination after the new TX law was enacted. Obviously, it’s a test case. And—because a suit was filed against him in accordance with the law— he has the legal standing to challenge it.

“I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Dr. Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

Good for him. The statute is a legislative travesty. I hope he prevails.

Texas Doctor Says He Performed an Abortion in Defiance of New State Law
 

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Dr. Alan Braid, a San Antonio OB-GYN who staffs an abortion clinic, performed a termination after the new TX law was enacted. Obviously, it’s a test case. And—because a suit was filed against him in accordance with the law— he has the legal standing to challenge it.

“I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Dr. Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

Good for him. The statute is a legislative travesty. I hope he prevails.

Texas Doctor Says He Performed an Abortion in Defiance of New State Law

Finally some drama.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The NY Times article doesn't mention any actual lawsuits, but this article from the Texas Tribune does: Texas doctor who admitted to violating the state’s near-total abortion ban sued under new law There probably has to be a lawsuit -- not just an abortion performed -- in order for the physician to claim in court that he's been hurt by the Texas law. We do need a test case here, so that the courts can evaluate this dubious new law.

(I'm hoping the Texas Tribune is a legit local Texas news site. Alas, I'm not from Texas, so I don't know their reputation.)
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The NY Times article doesn't mention any actual lawsuits, but this article from the Texas Tribune does: Texas doctor who admitted to violating the state’s near-total abortion ban sued under new law There probably has to be a lawsuit -- not just an abortion performed -- in order for the physician to claim in court that he's been hurt by the Texas law. We do need a test case here, so that the courts can evaluate this dubious new law.

(I'm hoping the Texas Tribune is a legit local Texas news site. Alas, I'm not from Texas, so I don't know their reputation.)
The doctor is not the one suing he's the one being sued by two lawyers from two different states, neither of them is in TX.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,169
4,434
Washington State
✟309,175.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I understand both lawers don't have anything against abortion, but are against this law and are doing this to put it before the higher court.

Don't know how this will fly with the court.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The refused of the supreme court not to injunct this bill on the grounds that Texas deliberately Aimed to bypass the constitution is a travesty of law.

The right wing justices are claiming to be impartial etc. But if this bill was by California to make a mental health check manditory for gun ownership using exactly the same language as the Texas bill, the supreme court would have stepped in before you could blink.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,348
10,241
Earth
✟137,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The doctor is not the one suing he's the one being sued by two lawyers from two different states, neither of them is in TX.
I’m thinking that this was set up like the “Scopes” [teaching evolution] or Rosa Parks’ cases were…everybody is actually on the “same side” and only in it to force the court action that can begin the litigation process.

Doing it this way your group can get the most favorable path to get the courts to see things your way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I’m thinking that this was set up like the “Scopes” [teaching evolution] or Rosa Parks’ cases were…everybody is actually on the “same side” and only in it to force the court action that can begin the litigation process.

Doing it this way your group can get the most favorable path to get the courts to see things your way.
The thing is the supreme court are already preparing to hear arguments on another abortion case in December, which all indications are will effectively render roe vs Wade obselete.

So they might not even hear this case as they are likely to have already ruled on a case concerning at what month you can ban abortion.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,348
10,241
Earth
✟137,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The thing is the supreme court are already preparing to hear arguments on another abortion case in December, which all indications are will effectively render roe vs Wade obselete.

So they might not even hear this case as they are likely to have already ruled on a case concerning at what month you can ban abortion.
The problem is overturning a decision that (in its effect) confers a “right” is that the Court has to repudiate the 1973 decision and spell out exactly where a woman’s rights end with regard to her procreation decisions.

The worst that will happen is that the question of abortion will go back to the states with guidelines.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The problem is overturning a decision that (in its effect) confers a “right” is that the Court has to repudiate the 1973 decision and spell out exactly where a woman’s rights end with regard to her procreation decisions.

The worst that will happen is that the question of abortion will go back to the states with guidelines.
There is every chance that the court wil rule states can ban outright abortion from 6 weeks , effectively ending abortion in many usbstates.
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,189
16,169
✟1,173,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There is every chance that the court wil rule states can ban outright abortion from 6 weeks , effectively ending abortion in many usbstates.
Then the race will be on to see what state can make it the most illegal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The doctor is not the one suing he's the one being sued by two lawyers from two different states, neither of them is in TX.

That's what I meant. If the doctor is successfully sued, then he can say that the law has harmed him -- because of the law, he's out $10,000. So at that point the Texas law has harmed him, and (I think) he can sue the state of Texas for that harm. Until then, it may not be possible to show in court that the law has actually harmed anyone, so there may not be a basis for a court case. I think.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's what I meant. If the doctor is successfully sued, then he can say that the law has harmed him -- because of the law, he's out $10,000. So at that point the Texas law has harmed him, and (I think) he can sue the state of Texas for that harm. Until then, it may not be possible to show in court that the law has actually harmed anyone, so there may not be a basis for a court case. I think.
OK, gotcha now, thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,075
7,405
✟343,116.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I’m thinking that this was set up like the “Scopes” [teaching evolution] or Rosa Parks’ cases were…everybody is actually on the “same side” and only in it to force the court action that can begin the litigation process.

Doing it this way your group can get the most favorable path to get the courts to see things your way.
Though that can backfire. Plessy v. Ferguson was a strategic lawsuit and we got stuck with "Separate but equal" for decades because of it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums