Wrote Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent antiabortion attorney, quoted in "Texas man files legal action to probe ex-partner’s out-of-state abortion/The previously unreported petition reflects a potential new antiabortion strategy to block women from ending their pregnancies in states where abortion is legal" (WaPo).
Mitchell is the lawyer for Collin Davis, the man who is not suing his ex.
... Davis has disclosed his former partner’s abortion to a state district court in Texas, asking for the power to investigate.... and “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child”...
The petition claims Davis could sue either under the state’s wrongful-death statute or the novel Texas law known as Senate Bill 8 that allows private citizens to file suit against anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion....
The case also illustrates the role that men who disapprove of their partners’ decisions could play in surfacing future cases that may violate abortion bans — either by filing their own civil lawsuits or by reporting the abortions to law enforcement....
In the Davis case, Mitchell is attempting to depose the woman who had the abortion, along with several other people he writes may be “complicit” in the abortion....
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
Is this retroactive?
Just asking for a friend.
Dude, you weren’t the father.
Anybody can sue anybody else for anything. They can also lose on motions to dismiss.
Why would he not be suing his ex too? By excluding her, it looks like he's just going for a payout.
Does he have to prove it was his kid? How would he do that?
Seeking and achieving the absolute right to kill a fellow human being had unforeseen consequences, as does every ambition.
The fundamental argument in favor of abortion rights is the claim of a woman's autonomy over her body. Besides ignoring the circularity of the mind-body problem, this notion of autonomy is self-evidently fabulous. If women, or men for that matter, enjoyed such autonomy, how it is so many suffer disease and involuntary death? We have some unmeasured degree of free will. We are not automata, but we are not autonomous. Our self-rule is mostly confined to our gift of foresight. We can infer cause and effect by observation. If Jill watches Jack leap from a high cliff and fall to his death on the rocks below, Jill can choose not to follow him and thereby avoid a similar death, but she cannot change her fate by changing her mind one the way down.
may be the politicians need to pass a legal/regulation requirement to preserve foetus tissue to narrow potential daddy claimants for damages? assuming 'discovery' succeeds
The story is even worse than the headline suggests and the headline is absolutely insane.
Why is he not suing her?
1. He's using Texas procedure to investigate her and anyone who helped her.
2. He's intimidating her and keeping his life interwoven with her. It's emotionally gratifying.
3. From the article: "Under Texas law, performing an abortion is a crime punishable by up to a lifetime in prison and up to $100,000 in civil penalties. Women seeking abortions cannot be charged under the state’s abortion restrictions, but the laws target anyone who performs or helps to facilitate an illegal abortion, including those who help distribute abortion pills."
"They can also lose on motions to dismiss."
How much money and attention does she need to dump into this case to get to that point? How would you like to be investigated in this way? Have you ever been the target of a tenacious litigator?
If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so. The state doesn't own its residents. They don't carry the state's limitations along with them when they cross into another state. You have a right to travel. It's a very basic right.
Check this out: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-says-constitution-protects-right-travel-abortion-2023-11-09/
If I'm a wife in a state that prohibits gambling and my husband loses all our savings in Las Vegas, can I sue the airline he flew there on? Can I sue the guy who drove him to the airport?
Can I sue the company my husband works for because they gave him the trip as part of a bonus for being a great salesman. Can I sue the distiller who made the bourbon that he drank in Las Vegas?
Right-wing lawfare.
"The state doesn't own its residents. They don't carry the state's limitations along with them when they cross into another state. You have a right to travel. It's a very basic right."
That's a big reason for the push for electric cars while also not expanding the electrical grid. They don't like that right to travel in whatever way people want, at least in California which really does want to do all it can to own its residents, past and present. And would like to own the residents of other stated too as much as it can get away with
If your wife takes your daughter to New York state for a medical procedure- for example, a gender transformation- and the doctor botches it and the daughter dies as a result, should you as the father not be able to sue even if you reside in Texas? Explain to me why travel for an abortion should be treated differently? The only fundamental difference I see is that an abortion isn't "botched" when it is successful.
I'm also wondering how a man could prove the aborted child or fetus was "his".
I agree with the notion that this is Right-Wing lawfare.
Senate Bill 8 that allows private citizens to file suit against anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion.
But it wasn't an illegal abortion--it's only illegal if it's illegal in the jurisdiction where it was performed.
If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so.
It just like all the people from Wisconsin who drive to Illinois to buy reefer and gummies at the Rockford and Vernon Hills dispensaries. You can also drive there for an abortion.
Get an abortion at 10am and pick up a back of Sour Diesel gummies on the way home. Two liberties, one road trip.
If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so. The state doesn't own its residents. They don't carry the state's limitations along with them when they cross into another state. You have a right to travel. It's a very basic right.
If you want to travel across state lines with my kid to "enjoy a liberty" not available in my (and my kid's) state, and that "liberty" involves harm to my kid, not really seeing that you should have the unfettered right to do so.
Republican idiocy.
On a semi-related note, if a women can unilaterally abort a fetus over the objections of the "father," why can't a "father" unilaterally release himself from his child support obligations if he wishes to abort a fetus, and the mother chooses to birth and raise the child?
Lawyers, analysis please.
I am not sure how I feel about this. I am fiercely pro-life but here are the issues I see:
-I don't like lawfare to resolve such fundamental issues. It harms the long-term goals. It might seem good to go with "If it saves one life...", but ultimately gaining the good will of people on the fence will save more lives than if they see your side as being jerks.
-Suing people for doing legal things that someone else wants when they are not allowed (if that is even a thing) is not a just way to handle things.
-If something is illegal but immoral, don't punish people with the law for doing legal things, change the law.
The Holy Roller minority, determined to rack up them party losses 'cuz it makes'em feel good in the pew. Maybe they should start their own party, the Le Pew party, an offshoot of Pèpe, the green frog..
If you want to govern, you have to win.
Seems only fair.
A woman can get knocked up whether accidentally or on purpose without the consent of the 'father,' and get payments for many years.
'If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so.'
Only states?
Could an American man travel with his nagging wife to Gaza and legally beat the shit out of her?
Anti-slavery, anti-diversity, anti-congruence, anti-redistributive change, anti-grooming, anti-abortion of viable human life... pro-science. Damn right-wingers, conserving human rights and normalizing development are a thankless task.
Republicans made the same mistake when they opposed slavery, then diversity, then progressive prices, then ethnic Springs, then immigration reform, then male sex "=" female sex, pseudoscience, etc. Why won't they just take a knee? Some Democrats, too.
That said, six weeks to a viable legal life in all 50 states. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Burdens, diversity, and a wicked solution.
When Texas has one party rule for a while, the intraparty schisms drive stupid legislation, made into law in an effort to hold the ruling party together in the legislature, while those politicians and laws become ever more niche in popular appeal statewide.
The Texas Republican Party is, so to speak, throwing the baby out with the abortion bathwater right now, losing a huge proportion of the female vote and that proportion of the male vote which has a significant other or offspring capable of needing an abortion. The Texas Democratic Party under Anne Richards told Texans that no, citizens could not carry firearms for self protection, not at all, heaven forbid it! Right now national Dems are power tripping over open immigration, another stupid on their part. National Republicans are so feckless as to leave no impression at all on viewers this far from DC.
We call these end-stage gyrations before a change in Party leadership of the state of Texas, "Stepping on Their Own Dicks" when male legislators are involved, and even when Anne Richards did it with vetoing concealed carry. I hope that explains Texas politics well enough that nobody is surprised when The Dems take over the state in an election or two.
Transjurisdictional authority is a Democratic imperative conceived in progressive philosophy, born in liberal license, adopted by cynical interests. What a "burden"... uh, burden.
Horrible, horrible, horrible. Considering their contribution (sometimes), at best, is about 15 seconds, and could have cared less about what happened to the woman or her reproduction.
And you right winger who say, oh she's a liberal with no regard for human life...Not true, that i have no regard for human life. I am, a proud liberal.
Vicki from Pasadena
the abortion rate will go down, but the birth rate will go down too, as people just stop having sex.
"On a semi-related note, if a women can unilaterally abort a fetus over the objections of the "father," why can't a "father" unilaterally release himself from his child support obligations if he wishes to abort a fetus, and the mother chooses to birth and raise the child?
Lawyers, analysis please."
Because.....shut up!
“If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so. The state doesn't own its residents. They don't carry the state's limitations along with them when they cross into another state.“
That’s an interesting legal question. It’s my understanding that if a state resident goes to another state and buys an insurance contract, the state of residence has jurisdiction to regulate that contract. A state resident who buys something in another state can also be taxed if they bring the item back into their state of residence (low rate of enforcement on that). Best to leave the state and not come back.
I think if the couple is married at the time of conception, he would have cause to litigate against his wife for an abortion that he did not consent to, with carveouts for divorce due to cause (not related to her divorcing cause she wanted an abortion.) If they are not married, then the father has few rights, and I think that is understandable. If he wants paternal rights he needs to be more careful.
On the other hand, he should also be off the hook if they are not married and she gets pregnant and wants to keep the child. If she wants parental support, she should seal the deal.
As a society we need to provide incentives, sanctions and support to make having children great again.
All my ex’s live in Texas.
The right to travel doesn’t necessarily extend to children. Divorce and child custody decrees can prevent a parent from taking their child to another state. The state here is appointing itself as Big Parent and prohibiting the little parent from taking an unborn child out of the state for purposes of an abortion. That may be unconstitutional, and certainly would have been before Dobbs, but is at least a colorable exercise of state jurisdiction after Dobbs.
“Is this retroactive?”
No, it’s radioactive. Why keep trying to lose the election? This will just stir up the women vote.
To me it’s obvious that you have the privilege of getting an abortion in any state where it is legal. Without liability due to it being illegal at home.
I'm openly against it, but secretly I hope these types of laws succeed.
If the child is born, the mother can go after the father. Why can't the father go after the woman?
It's emotionally gratifying.
Mind reader...
it’s radioactive
Franklin warned conservatives that they could not fight the empire and slavery simultaneously. Today, that warning applies to human rites etc.
victoria said...
"Horrible, horrible, horrible. Considering their contribution (sometimes), at best, is about 15 seconds, and could have cared less about what happened to the woman or her reproduction.
And you right winger who say, oh she's a liberal with no regard for human life...Not true, that i have no regard for human life. I am, a proud liberal.
Vicki from Pasadena"
On collateral benefit would be that you won't open your legs to every guy you meet in a bar. Abortions tend to keep stupid people in check.
@Vicki/Victoria,
Not the main point, but it takes me longer than 15 seconds.
You must be quite a looker and/or performer if that’s what you’re used to.
"You have a right to travel. It's a very basic right."
How basic is it? Can you think of a more basic right?
"And you right winger who say, oh she's a liberal with no regard for human life...Not true, that i have no regard for human life. I am, a proud liberal."
Phil Ochs would like to have a word with you ...
"On[e] collateral benefit would be that you won't open your legs to every guy you meet in a bar."
Ooooh! Slut-shaming!
When it came to the covid vaccine, it was not my body, and it was not my choice. I was sympathetic to women on this issue before, but now I am not.
It would take the right kind of published article to get me to engage and change my mind.
I am curious about the crazy demand for abortion. What percentage of women are unfamiliar with contraception in its many many forms? With the morning after pill. And pregnancy tests. Are the women getting unwanted pregnancies dim or do they just want to say they got abortions.
"On a semi-related note, if a women can unilaterally abort a fetus over the objections of the "father," why can't a "father" unilaterally release himself from his child support obligations if he wishes to abort a fetus, and the mother chooses to birth and raise the child?
Lawyers, analysis please."
Abortion doesn't leave behind a child who may require support from the state, the way a man abandoning a woman and child does. What should happen is that when the child is born, the man gets the option to have it euthanized immediately. That gives men and women equal say in the life of the child and equal result for the state.
“If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so. The state doesn't own its residents. They don't carry the state's limitations along with them when they cross into another state.”
If you travel to a state that doesn’t have a sales tax, buy something there, and bring it back to your home state, you have to pay the same tax as if you bought it at home. So if you travel out of state with a fetus and return without one, shouldn’t you be subject to the same penalty as if you’d stayed home?
This sort of lawfare is highly disturbing and distasteful. But you know what's *really* disturbing and distasteful? Butchering your own child while it's still growing inside you. So, meh...
Ann Althouse:
If you want to travel to another state to enjoy a liberty that is not available in your own state, you should have a right to do so.
If you want to travel to another state to enjoy the liberty of killing someone's child because your state prevents it, you should have a right to do so.
Don't sound all that altruistic phrased as what it is.
"Fathers of aborted fetuses can sue for wrongful death in states with abortion bans, even if the abortion occurs out-of-state."
Good. For some reason people fail to admit the child is half someone else's.
victoria:
Horrible, horrible, horrible. Considering their contribution (sometimes), at best, is about 15 seconds, and could have cared less about what happened to the woman or her reproduction.
Projecting your disappointing experiences again?
even before abortion brings sperm contributor into this discussion === what about woman using spermicidal before foeticidal
are contraceptive only against egg-implantation or also spermicidal? who owns the ejaculate contents?
throwing the baby out with the abortion bathwater
=================================
throwing the baby out with the abortion amniotic ! is idiotic?
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"
- Joe Biden
This is one guy engaging in some creative lawyering.
Is it really "a potential new antiabortion strategy," or just a new bogeyman?
It seems to me that point one is the difficulty of establishing fatherhood, as many have already pointed out. What are the damages? Can the defense put on testimony about the expense of raising a child? The economic prospects of children raised by single mothers who wanted to abort them? How many guys are going to bring this case?
"For some reason people fail to admit the child is half someone else's."
Not when they're permitted to live. Then, the "half someone else's" is on the hook for child support.
Fetus is a technical term-of-art used to socially distance medical technicians, abortionists, and Pro-Choice religionists from their subjects, victims, and sacrifices, respectively.
Abortion doesn't leave behind a child who may require support from the state,
Abortion! I mean, war! What it is good for.
Think of the carbon! Stay neutral.
Jupiter said...
"On[e] collateral benefit would be that you won't open your legs to every guy you meet in a bar."
"Ooooh! Slut-shaming!"
Viki isn't a slut! She's only available during happy hour. At least that's what all the guys say.
Mason G said...
"For some reason people fail to admit the child is half someone else's."
Not when they're permitted to live. Then, the "half someone else's" is on the hook for child support.
5/3/24, 8:17 PM
THIS!!....and sometimes the person "accused" of being the father has to pay for somebody else's child support because the MOTHER lied about sleeping around.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा