Texas Abortion Ban Sadistic, Psychopathic, Dumb As Hell
Earlier parts of SB 8 get into the whole "heartbeat" thing. But, for the purposes of this post, here's the most relevant section:
Sec. 171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR ABETTING VIOLATION.
(a) Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;
(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; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
Let's get something straight: There is no part of this law that isn't sadistic, psychopathic, and dumb as hell. And absolutely none of it would be acceptable under any circumstances. But what it actually does is so much worse than it even sounds, if you read most of the press coverage of SB 8.
Take a look at (3) right there. Not only is actually having an abortion or helping someone have an abortion illegal; it's also illegal to even consider having an abortion or helping someone get one.
So not only does this law allow any random-ass piece of shit to file a lawsuit against any person with a uterus accusing them of having an "illegal" abortion. And not only does it also allow those psychopaths to accuse any doctor of performing an "illegal" abortion. It also allows them to sue literally anyone they think might have ever considered having an abortion, or might have considered helping someone have an abortion.
So under what is now CURRENT, EXISTING TEXAS LAW, abortion bounty hunting can be brought by, for example:
- Abusive men who claim their partner/ex wanted to have an abortion, even if they didn't go through with it.
- Rapists who feel like banding together to sue each other's victims and share the bounties.
- Any fucking random sadist with nothing better to do.
And against:
- Abortion funds, their employees, and the people who donate to them.
- A mom who helps her teenager get a legal abortion in another state.
- Uber/Lyft drivers who may have transported pregnant people.
- Alllllll the OB-GYNs.
- People who actually care about women and pregnant people.
- Literally anyone with a uterus.
It's also fucking absurd.
In addition to all of the terrible things this law allows, it is also written so poorly as to give us some amazing possibilities, that certainly must have been unintended consequences.
With that part in section 3, allowing people to target anyone who "intends to engage" in "aiding or abetting" an abortion, I can make a good-faith legal argument that any man who has even thought about having heterosexual sex, much less had heterosexual sex, or even — gasp! — unprotected heterosexual sex, has intended to engage in aiding and abetting abortion.
Some of the intended consequences are also great. The abortion bounty hunter can sue whomever he wants, in any county in the (very large) state, and the defendant isn't allowed to move it to a closer venue. And even defendants who win because they had absolutely nothing to do with "aiding and abetting" an abortion can't recover their costs and attorney's fees.
So, one may wonder, what is stopping people from clogging Texas's court system with cases alleging every legislator who voted for this abomination has intended to aid and abet an abortion? In the furthest county from where they live? And forcing them to pay for attorneys to defend the case?
Can we fucking do anything about this?
Yes! The real question is whether Democrats actually will do anything.
The thing is, there actually are a whole bunch of things Democrats could do. But the problem is, most of these potential solutions require thinking outside the box. And if there's one thing the powers that be in the Democratic Party love, it's archaic norms.
Decades ago, Republicans and Democrats were in a basement, sitting at a table, playing chess. Then, the Republicans doused the basement in gasoline and set it on fire. But the Democrats are still sitting at the table, yelling about the rules of chess.
Like Elie Mystal writes over at The Nation, "The only question is how far Democrats are willing to go to defend women's rights." And, frankly, you can sing all the platitudes you want — I'll believe it when I see it.
There have been a lot of great press releases about protecting abortion rights this week. And that's nice. I appreciate words of support, I do. But, unless you are on the front lines doing absolutely everything you can to stop this, you can shove your press releases up your ass.
Want a few free ideas, Democratic leadership? Here you go!
- Pass Women's Health Protection Act, codifying Roe, fucking yesterday.
- Expand the goddamn motherfucking Court and our circuit courts before our democracy crumbles as we all sit here watching.
- As Mystal suggests, use the doctrine of qualified immunity for good, for once. Make abortion providers federal officials — like vaccine distribution, but for abortion. They will have qualified immunity for all of their official actions.
- Make DC and Puerto Rico states. (Assuming PR wants to be a state, that is. I certainly wouldn't blame Puerto Ricans giving that one a hard pass.)
For her part, Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she would be bringing the Women's Health Protection Act up for a vote when Congress returns. Awesome! But Congress is still chillin' until the end of the month. Shame on my fucking Congress for going on a two-month vacation without lifting a finger to stop this travesty, when we all knew it was coming
Yesterday, Biden, too, released a great statement. Noting that the Supreme Court had "unleash[ed] unconstitutional chaos and empower[ed] self-anointed enforcers to have devastating impacts" on people's lives, Biden directed the White House Counsel's Office and Gender Policy Council "to launch a whole-of-government effort" to respond to this decision. He asked the offices to "look specifically to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to see what steps the Federal Government can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe, and what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas' bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties."
Good. Great! But, again, I'll believe there is real action coming just as soon as it happens.
What's happening in Texas right now is already destroying lives, we have known since May that this was coming, and my federal government did absolutely nothing to stop it.
I have nothing good to say about any of this.
Unless we're counting things like "Maybe SCOTUS will wait a few years before going full fetal personhood and banning all abortion nationwide?" and "Rich people will always be able to get abortions" as "good" now, I got nothin'.
The Onion continues to be depressingly prescient, with a new post titled "New Texas Law Allows Private Citizens To Hold Pregnant Women Hostage Until Birth." And don't kid yourselves: That shit is coming next.
While our political and court systems continue to fail us, there are some amazing people in Texas fighting the good fight on the ground. Organizations like RAICES, the Texas Equal Access Fund, Frontera Fund, Jane's Due Process, and Fund Texas Choice are still working — and, in some cases, straight-up saying that laws like this one are "meant to be broken."
Now is a great time to donate to or volunteer with an organization helping people in Texas access the abortion care they need.
I have donated to a few Texas orgs and abortion funds this week. A few people have asked if I'm afraid of being sued. And you know what I have to say to that?
Bring. It. On.
Follow Jamie on Twitter, she has a lot more to say about abortion rights and misogyfascists.
[ Yr Wonkette / Yr Wonkette again / SCOTUS / White House ]
Judge Releases The Kraken On Sidney Powell And Lin Wood
They fucked around. Now they find out.
Remember last November and December, when a bunch of brainwashed grundles were telling anyone who would listen that Trump had actually won the election? Despite losing literally every swing state?
This was always a delusion dreamed up in Jacob Wohl's basement, and, therefore, entirely made up. But being dumb and saying dumb things isn't illegal here in America. Just ask my Senator.
But here's the thing.
While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced, such expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law.
Dearest Sidney and Lin, you can go on Twitter and say alllllll the dumb shit you want. (Oh, sorry, Lin. I forgot you actually can't.) The First Amendment protects your right to spew cultish conspiracy theories in the marketplace of ideas! The First Amendment does not, however, give you the right to make shit up and abuse our court system with lawsuits trying to overturn a democratic election.
Of course, an "empty-head" but "pure-heart" does not justify lodging patently unsupported factual assertions.
and
This is not okay. The Court remains baffled after trying to ascertain what convinced Plaintiffs' counsel otherwise.
and
[S]ubjective belief that an event occurred does not constitute evidence that the event in fact occurred.
So. Were they wrong about the law? Yes.
Plaintiffs' counsel advanced claims that were not well-grounded in the law, as demonstrated by their (i) presentment of claims not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing the law; (ii) assertion that acts or events violated Michigan election law, when the acts and events (even if they occurred) did not; and (iii) failure to inquire into the requirements of Michigan election law.
But were they wrong about the facts? Also yes.
Plaintiffs' counsel advanced claims that were also not well-grounded in fact, as demonstrated by their (i) failure to present any evidentiary support for factual assertions; (ii) presentment of conjecture and speculation as evidentiary support for factual assertions; (iii) failure to inquire into the evidentiary support for factual assertions; (iv) failure to inquire into evidentiary support taken from other lawsuits; and (v) failure to inquire into [their so-called expert's] outlandish and easily debunked numbers.
And lawyers are supposed to be better than this, you absolute wankers.
Indeed, attorneys take an oath to uphold and honor our legal system. The sanctity of both the courtroom and the litigation process are preserved only when attorneys adhere to this oath and follow the rules, and only when courts impose sanctions when attorneys do not. And despite the haze of confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs' attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way. As such, the Court is duty-bound to grant the motions for sanctions[.]
To the astonishment of absolutely everyone paying attention, Powell used her sanctions hearing to compare herself to Thurgood Marshall, and, in Judge Parker's words, "baselessly suggest" her dumbass suit was "akin to Brown v. Board of Education."
"Yes, attorneys may and should raise difficult and even unpopular issues to urge change in the law where change is needed." But, umm, (andnoIcan'tbelievethisactuallyfuckinghastobesaid,) Sidney Powell, ain't you no Thurgood Marshall. As Judge Parker puts it,
Brown arose from an undeniable history during which Black Americans were treated as second-class citizens through legalized segregation in the schools of our country. In stark comparison, the present matter is built on fantastical claims and conspiracy theories.
Powell latched onto the Dominion plaintiffs' assertion that her allegations amounted to "wild accusations" and "outlandish claims" and therefore, she argued, "reasonable people would not accept" these alleged statements and allegations "as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by courts through the adversary process."
Turns out judges don't love it when you say "I was being such a moron that no one should have taken me seriously and it's your own fault if you did" about actual suits you filed in a court of law.
SHOCKED, I AM SHOCKED!
It is not acceptable to support a lawsuit with opinions, which counsel herself claims no reasonable person would accept as fact and which were "inexact," "exaggerate[ed]," and "hyperbole." Nor is it acceptable to use the federal judiciary as a political forum to satisfy one's political agenda. Such behavior by an attorney in a court of law has consequences.
Nor was the judge persuaded by Powell's argument that she was simply too careless and ignorant to figure out if "facts" were "true.
Plaintiffs' counsel may not bury their heads in the sand and thereafter make affirmative proclamations about what occurred above ground. In such cases, ignorance is not bliss—it is sanctionable.
Or, as I might put it, "You are dumber than an ostrich taint."
Some of the stupidest criminals in the world are working right here in America. I've always been very proud of that.
Pro-tip: try to live your life so a judge never has to tell you there's a difference between Telegram and federal court.
Plaintiffs' counsel's politically motivated accusations, allegations, and gamesmanship may be protected by the First Amendment when posted on Twitter, shared on Telegram, or repeated on television. The nation's courts, however, are reserved for hearing legitimate causes of action.
Sidney. Lin. Do you ... know what an attorney is? Neither I nor Judge Parker is convinced that you do.
Unfortunately for team squid, "I'm too dumb to live" does not insulate you from the consequences for your actions. If you don't believe me, just ask the anti-vaxxers currently dying of COVID.
Bring on the sanctions!
Sanctions are required to deter the filing of future frivolous lawsuits designed primarily to spread the narrative that our election processes are rigged and our democratic institutions cannot be trusted. Notably, many people have latched onto this narrative, citing as proof counsel's submissions in this case. The narrative may have originated or been repeated by Former President Trump and it may be one that "many Americans" share; however, that neither renders it true nor justifies counsel's exploitation of the courts to further spread it.
Now, the lawyers have to take at least twelve hours of "how to be a lawyer" classes, with at least six about election law and six about pleading standards. The judge anticipated these wingnuts would try to take continuing legal education courses taught by Larry Klayman at Trump University, and mandated they "be offered by a non-partisan organization" and "paid for at counsel's expense."
[T]his lawsuit was not about vindicating rights in the wake of alleged election fraud. Instead, it was about ensuring that a preferred political candidate remained in the presidential seat despite the decision of the nation's voters to unseat him.
Facts supporting the "Trump won" fever dreams are more elusive than literal kraken; giant squids with eyes the size basketballs are actually a real thing that exists.
As I have said a lot over the last several years: this may not be the worst timeline, but it certainly is the dumbest.
This court order could have straight-up quoted directly from Billy Madison and it would have made complete sense.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
But the judge's actual opinion is pretty great, too.
Here it is, for your viewing pleasure:
And did I say "Suck it, Sidney Powell"? Suck it, Sidney Powell.
Jamie is salty and snarky on Twitter, too.
