"... in what appears to be a first-of-its-kind wrongful-death lawsuit — and a fresh test of federal and state abortion laws. The complaint, filed in a Texas federal court, accuses the doctor of violating state law that prohibits performing or facilitating an abortion, including by distributing pills. But California, where the physician is based, has a 'shield' law explicitly protecting providers who mail abortion pills, including to states where the procedure is banned. The case appears to be the first time an interstate wrongful-death claim over an abortion has been filed in federal court. It is also the latest legal challenge against a provider as antiabortion activists attempt to curb the flow of abortion pills, which are being mailed into all 50 states under shield laws passed after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade...."
From "Man sues over girlfriend’s abortion in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit/he first-of-its-kind wrongful-death lawsuit tests the laws blue states passed to protect abortion access after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade" (WaPo).
86 కామెంట్లు:
Behind a paywall, so my question is: who died?
If women can end a pregnancy for any reason early on, which I agree they should be able to do, then the man should be able to opt out of child support for any reason.
In this case I hope the man loses this case. This is nuts.
My guess would be both laws are unconstitutional. TX's because they don't control the mails--that's a federal issue--and CAs because they can't override the laws in other states. Illegal in TX is illegal in TX no matter what CA thinks about it.
Who died? A baby.
The next logical step is for a federal agency to be created to investigate every miscarriage as a potential manslaughter wrongful death case.
behind a paywall.
I'm a bit confused.
Is the wrongful death because the mother died? or the baby?
so, IF Texas passes a law, that says it's "OKAY" for Texans kill people in California..
Does that mean that Texans could start lobbing nuclear missiles into California?
asking for a friend
Under International Shoe, at what point does a doctor mailing a prescription to a patient establish minimum contacts sufficient to assert personal jurisdiction to bring a case in Texas, as would engaging in open interstate commerce?
Seriously, WHY is it okay to violate state laws with mails?
marijuana is still illegal in Iowa (last i checked)..
If a Wisconsinite mails marijuana into iowa.. HOW is that NOT illegal?
What is it about abortion as a subject that makes people stupid and wrong and completely blind to the secondary effects of their laws?
I wonder if Texas could mail .45ACP to California?
If a Wisconsinite mails marijuana into iowa.. HOW is that NOT illegal?
I wonder if Texas could mail .45ACP to California?
Keep in mind it appears Texas is not interested in prosecuting the criminal statute here.
It's a private party bringing a civil wrongful death action for damages based upon the statute as evidence of wrongful conduct.
“Under International Shoe” unborn babies have soles?
Shoulda put a ring on it.
An odd lawsuit because it seems to be more personal and about a man’s control over his girlfriend and her pregnancy than it is about breaking the law. He is asking for $75K in damages. Of interest is they are still together and she is pregnant again. He feels she will terminate the pregnancy - in part because of her estranged husband who the boyfriend thinks is orchestrating her decisions. The question in this case is which state law takes precedent; Texas or California. It’s up to a judge. Legal experts say the SCOTUS may not want to take it if it gets that far.
Lazarus beat me to it. If he didn't marry her, he can GFH.
I thought this issue was over.
Matt's explanation at 1145 leads me to say a pox on all their houses.
Wince said...
If a Wisconsinite mails marijuana into iowa.. HOW is that NOT illegal?
I wonder if Texas could mail .45ACP to California?
Keep in mind it appears Texas is not interested in prosecuting the criminal statute here.
It's a private party bringing a civil wrongful death action for damages based upon the statute as evidence of wrongful conduct.
And we pay for judges to listen to this stupidity.
This is all a performative waste of time.
Achilles: The next logical step is for a federal agency to be created to investigate every miscarriage as a potential manslaughter wrongful death case.
Why? Killing an adult has been illegal since before the US was founded, but I've never heard anybody suggest that every death of an adult needs to be investigated as a potential crime.
Olson Johnson is right! said...
Achilles, try not to be a cunt.
As long as we are at it why don’t we also lament the fact that people are addicted to the subject of abortion because it gives them the opportunity to attack people who disagree with them in the most dehumanizing ways possible.
We have people who sell fetus parts to stem cell labs on one side and people who want a camera installed in every uterus on the other.
What isn’t to love?
SeanF said...
Achilles: The next logical step is for a federal agency to be created to investigate every miscarriage as a potential manslaughter wrongful death case.
Why? Killing an adult has been illegal since before the US was founded, but I've never heard anybody suggest that every death of an adult needs to be investigated as a potential crime.
True.
We will only investigate the poor people who don’t have the means to cover the end of their pregnancy up.
"If a Wisconsinite mails marijuana into iowa.. HOW is that NOT illegal?"
I suppose he could be charged with accessory to possession by the state of Iowa even though what he did was legal in the locality in which he did it. Let the extradition begin!
I know I am being flippant.
But seriously how are you anti abortion people going to enforce your stupid laws?
Be specific.
At some point I would hope that the people who are ostensibly opposed to abortion will realize the only way to prevent abortions is through building a citizenry that does not need a law against it.
"If a Wisconsinite mails marijuana into iowa.. HOW is that NOT illegal?"
You are a special kind of stupid and incurious, as you didnt bother to check if Wisconsin is a legal state.
Possession in Wisconsin is illegal.
God forbid that a SPLOOGEstooge should have any rights concerning offspring other than to be the designated loser in family court and/or pay child support for decades
Matt said...
The question in this case is which state law takes precedent; Texas or California. It’s up to a judge. Legal experts say the SCOTUS may not want to take it if it gets that far.
The threshold issue is whether a Texas court can claim personal jurisdiction over the doctor sending the prescription based upon the "minimum contacts" standard already set by SCOTUS.
“Under International Shoe” unborn babies have soles?
Hahaha...I want to tread carefully here, but the guy sounds like a heel.
- Krumhorn
We shouldn't make crappy jokes about the dead feetus.
- Krumhorn
So, under the Commerce Clause, assisted suicide is legal in every state to whatever extent it is in the most permissive state, as long as the assistance is rendered online and using US Mail or other interstate carriers? Assumes the most liberal state adopts a shield law, I suppose, though it isn't entirely clear to me that that should be dispositive.
"Mark said...
"If a Wisconsinite mails marijuana into iowa.. HOW is that NOT illegal?"
You are a special kind of stupid and incurious, as you didnt bother to check if Wisconsin is a legal state.
Possession in Wisconsin is illegal."
Running for dick of the year?
But seriously.....
Still a cunt. "I know I'm being flippant..."
No, you are being a cunt. 5 or 6 shitty comments in a row and then you say "But seriously I want to have a real conversation about this important issue."
Sorry, but you have already disqualified your cunty self from any further participation.
The girlfriend was the wrong Uber. (See my body is a car post) Who does he sue for that?
Olson Johnson is right! said...
But seriously.....
Still a cunt. "I know I'm being flippant..."
No, you are being a cunt. 5 or 6 shitty comments in a row and then you say "But seriously I want to have a real conversation about this important issue."
Sorry, but you have already disqualified your cunty self from any further participation.
No.
I just know that you people tend to be intellectual cowards so I default to making fun of you.
If you have a serious answer to how you intend to enforce your stupid anti abortion laws take a shot at it.
I just don’t expect anything from you and your posts here reaffirm my suspicion that you haven’t given any serious thought on the subject and you don’t want to think about it or discuss it.
But go ahead and pretend you are serious if it makes you feel better.
"Of interest is they are still together and she is pregnant again. He feels she will terminate the pregnancy - in part because of her estranged husband who the boyfriend thinks is orchestrating her decisions....."
Well, there's your problem. They shouldn't be f*cking, much less having kids. This is the kind of stuff that makes you want to re-instate public flogging, just to make sure there's a viable counter-point out there in the societal mind.
A fetus is not a human, is the mistake that leads to nonsense in the law. It's a human fetus (not wolf), but not a human. A human in embryo, you can even say.
Maybe cohabitation of the insemination type ought to be considered a binding contract with the stipulation/clause that both parties must agree to how the baby new car gets to drive off the lot or be disassembled and donated for spare parts… or something. California recycling laws are very strict.
This may be a good start at acknowledging that there are three people involved in any pregnancy.
I propose that the man in this case is every bit as responsible as the mother and pill supplier for the baby's death. He was there when the baby was created. He had the responsibility to ensure the baby would be cared for. If he didn't want the responsibility, or if he didn't know that the mother wanted the responsibility, he should not have helped create the baby.
A fetus is not a human?
Right - when excited expecting mothers get Ultrasound photos of the growing baby - they go around and say ...
"hey look at my fetus!" /////
No - they say - "look at my baby."
rhhardin retardedly said...
A fetus is not a human,
so, rh? as the Most Retarded Person, in the world..
answer me this?
If *i* shoot a pregnant woman.. and they die..
HOW MANY homicides will *i* be charged with?
hmmm?
" They shouldn't be f*cking, much less having kids. This is the kind of stuff that makes you want to re-instate public flogging, just to make sure there's a viable counter-point out there in the societal mind."
yep, the penalty for fornication should be flogging..
Would Really clear things up
If you build a bomb in CA and send it to someone in Texas, who then uses it to murder another human being, no law IN CA can protect you from being prosecuted for that murder in Texas.
"Full faith and credit", I'm pretty sure, means that even if CA says that behavior is legal, it has to extradite you to Texas for your murder trial.
So CA, and the Doctor, are going to lose this case, and should lose this case.
If you sell fireworks in Wyoming to someone who takes them to CA and fires them off in CA, you haven't committed a crime, because your sale was legal.
But if you SHIP the fireworks to someone in CA who you know does not have the legal right to buy them, and they burn someone's house down, you're going to be in trouble.
By mailing them to Texas, the Dr gave Texas the right and power to go after him
rhhardin said...
A fetus is not a human,
Really? What is it? A monkey? An elephant?
Why is it that the people who claim to "believe in science" have so many problems actually dealing with scientific reality?
A human fetus is, in fact, human. Now, you may want to claim that said human does not meet YOUR definition of being "alive", and therefore it's not a crime to kill him or her. Just like a State might rule that someone who is "brain dead" is not "alive", so the hospital can stop support and let the body die without it being a crime.
But that's a matter of opinion, and a matter of State law. And the State of Texas has chosen to grant those human fetuses its protection. Which it is legally entitled to do.
And CA doesn't get a vote on that.
You are a special kind of stupid and incurious, as you didnt bother to check if Wisconsin is a legal state.
Possession in Wisconsin is illegal."
really? i just know what the signs say when i drive through
https://business.prairieduchien.org/list/member/forever-green-hemp-dispensary-2799
Best Cannabis Dispensaries near 118 W Blackhawk Ave, Prairie du Chien, WI 53821
https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=Cannabis+Dispensaries&find_loc=118+W+Blackhawk+Ave%2C+Prairie+du+Chien%2C+WI+53821
https://wheresweed.com/wisconsin/prairie-du-chien
Matt said...
An odd lawsuit because it seems to be more personal and about a man’s control over his girlfriend and her pregnancy than it is about breaking the law.
You sick fuck.
It's about a man being upset that a woman murdered his baby. And he's entitled to find that wrong, whether she does the murdering before or after the baby's birth.
Matt said...
An odd lawsuit because it seems to be more personal and about a man’s control over his girlfriend and her pregnancy than it is about breaking the law.
If the sexes were reversed, and the girlfriend lied, said she was on birth control when she wasn't, got pregnant, and had the baby, he would be on the hook for 18 years of child support. Because he chose to have sex.
She chose to have sex with him. Maybe he lied about having a vasectomy. I don't know, and I don't care. She's on the hook for 9 months of carrying to term the baby she helped create. After that, if she wants to give the baby up for adoption, I'm ok with him not having a vote.
Because they "didn't put a ring on it." (How do you know he didn't offer, with her turning him down?)
But that's his baby who was killed, and he has every right in the world to go after the killer of his baby, and everyone who helped her kill his baby.
To me the most interesting element hinges on standing. Can a man who provides 1/2 of the components required to produce a child and be held accountable for 18-21 years of financial support also be denied the opportunity to protect said future child?
Murder after six weeks under homicide laws. A hate crime from conception under loving. Planned parenthood can be performed as an act of self-defense. It is generally a wicked solution to a hard problem: demos-cracy is aborted in darkness. A human rite performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. A transhumane religion that aborts, sequesters the "burden" of evidence to keep women, and girls, too, affordable, available, reusable, and taxable.
Greg T.C.T.,
"After that, if she wants to give the baby up for adoption, I'm ok with him not having a vote."
Assuming he can demonstrate he really is the father (sworn statement from the mother, DNA test, whatever is legally accepted in the jurisdiction) then it wouldn't be a case of adoption since the child would as a matter of course be placed with its legal father, unless he were somehow adjudicated unfit to parent.
The ability of the mother but not the father to relinquish all parental claims and responsibilities just by saying so... naturally opens up an entirely different can of worms.
A baby is a human life. A fetus is a fetish of technical art to socially distance rapists, abortionists, et al from their victims. There is no mystery in sex and conception.
The pro-abortionists, JournoLists, and corporate patrons wil try to force their model of progress for-profit. We should be wary of exercising liberal license to indulge DEIst beliefs and practices.
I don’t see how you can sue someone who never left California for violating Texas law. The only criminal here is the woman who used the pills she obtained from California to end a human life in Texas. Premeditated murder! Sue her for every penny she’s got and then give her the chair! (Or whatever they use there now—Texas leads the nation in executions, so they know what they’re doing.)
Speaking of re-designation (I’m still bouncing off ‘my body the car’ manosphere lite post) Weren’t the first babies, Cain and Abel the first migrants? One grew up to be a farmer and the other a shepherd. If only pro-lifers had the imagination, the knack the liberals have for renaming stuff, we would not be in the predicament of having to defend the most vulnerable.
"Can a man who provides 1/2 of the components required to produce a child and be held accountable for 18-21 years of financial support also be denied the opportunity to protect said future child?"
Depends on what the woman wants.
Send her to Planned Parent...hood? Abort her and accessories to the homicide under liberal license following progressive principles. A wicked solution with transhumane appeal to Democrazi past, present, and forward-looking.
Smilin' Jack said...
I don’t see how you can sue someone who never left California for violating Texas law.
Then you need to improve your brain.
I send you a letter bomb from CA. You open it up, it blows up, you die. That's murder in Texas, and Texas can most certainly demand that CA extradite you.
If you in CA commit fraud against someone in Texas, there will be times when that's a crime in Texas, and you can be prosecuted in Texas.
If you knowingly send to Texas something that is illegal in Texas, that's a crime in Texas, and therefore you can be prosecuted in Texas.
If she or a friend had traveled to CA, bought the drugs from teh Dr there, and then transported them back to Texas, you'd have to prove the Dr knew they were going to be used in Texas before you could try to extradite him / sue him.
Article IV
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Being in CA doesn't let you violate the laws of Texas, or let you knowingly help other people violate the laws of Texas.
No "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag?
Does no one here remember the discussion three years ago about the Texas Heartbeat Law and the legal strategy it used in allowing anyone, not just a boyfriend or father, to sue anyone else for aiding or facilitating an abortion?
This is a test case lawyered by one of the authors of that strategy.
A human fetus is, in fact, human.
That's what I said. I also said that it is not a human. The criteria are different. One's about tissue type, the other includes social matters. "He hardly seems human" is often heard of certain misfits. That's not an arbitrary choice. It reflects the interest in the word that gives it a meaning.
To parents wanting a baby a fetus is a human. A social relation. To somebody not wanting the pregnancy it's just a medical problem, human tissue that will cause a problem.
It's a mistake for states to overturn that as well.
That OTC abortion may prove to be an affirmative endangerment, depending on how far the child has developed. Remember DE instruction to mitigate forward-looking risk to the mother from planned parenthood by Choice. Good for Texas to stand up to unregulated misogyny and transhumane activism.
A life deemed unworthy of life has Diverse precedents that we should probably overturn in our present, sober state of mind.
I’m with robother at 12:47. Under what condition can anyone use the mails to violate the laws of another state?
It is against the law to mail all sorts of things, think ammunition, guns, bombs, etc to other States.....especially to locations where those items are forbidden or require extensive background checks and licensing.
Just because California has made the abortion pills legal in California, doesn't mean that California can make it legal or "shield" the lawbreaker's actions in the other State Location. They broke the law in Texas by sending contraband TO Texas.
rhhardin: I also said that it is not a human. The criteria are different. One's about tissue type, the other includes social matters. "He hardly seems human" is often heard of certain misfits. That's not an arbitrary choice. It reflects the interest in the word that gives it a meaning.
To parents wanting a baby a fetus is a human. A social relation. To somebody not wanting the pregnancy it's just a medical problem, human tissue that will cause a problem.
It's wrong for the law to require you to treat another being as a human if you don't consider that being to be a human?
To repeat: you shoulda put a ring on it.
Wedding or nuva, it doesn't matter.
Sure, Texas could charge the California doctor with violating Texas law and ask California to extradite him. Good luck with that.
It's wrong for the law to require you to treat another being as a human if you don't consider that being to be a human?
The law can require you to treat it as human tissue. You yourself are changing the meaning of the word "a human" that encodes all the social interactions owed to a human and owed by a human, to extend it to a fetus without social interactions. Unless the parents consider it a baby and not a fetus - that's a social interaction.
Think of it that you learn to be a human. At birth people are playing your role for you.
As at four, my child may want to pay for dinner. I hand him the money and he hands it to the cashier. Did he pay for dinner? Not fully, but he learns the role and that we treat it as paying for dinner. Becoming a human.
You might say, as a joke, of a newborn, "He looks like a tiny human." Where does the joke get its force from?
The California law is the abortion law equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Act, trying to impose its laws beyond its borders.
rhhardin said...
A human fetus is, in fact, human.
That's what I said. I also said that it is not a human.
So, in other words, you're a lying sack of shit playing word games.
GFY
You're a 1850s Southerner saying that "slaves are 'people', but they're not 'real people', they're just property."
Human fetuses are human beings. And they are all far more human than a dishonest piece of shit like you is.
The people of Texas, through their elected representatives, have decided that those humans beings are worthy of the protection of the State.
All your brainless bullshit doesn't change that.
rhhardin: You yourself are changing the meaning of the word "a human" that encodes all the social interactions owed to a human and owed by a human, to extend it to a fetus without social interactions. Unless the parents consider it a baby and not a fetus - that's a social interaction.
It's your meaning, not mine. You specified it right there - a fetus is not a human if its parents don't consider it a human, it is a human if they do. How about a two-year-old child? Is that child not a human if its parents don't consider it a human? How about a ten-year-old? A fifty-year-old?
I think I know what you're going to say. But understand that if "society" or "community" can override the parents' opinion in the case of a two-year-old, then it can in the case of a fetus as well. And that's what a democratically enacted law is.
Would California punish a person who mail ordered ammunition from a vendor in Texas?
~ Gordon Pasha said...
Would California punish a person who mail ordered ammunition from a vendor in Texas?
Would it be illegal for California to punish a person who mail ordered ammunition from a vendor in Texas?
Why are people going to such lengths to defend this absolutely insane lawsuit?
Do you people not understand the absolute crazy town that results from this being successful?
Once I figured out the lawsuit was about the death of the baby, I will say this lawsuit is bonkers despite the fact I am pro-life. If pills mailed from California to another state took the life of a pregnant woman, I would fully support a massive wrongful death suit against the doctor. The pills being discussed are powerful drugs that, even in the best circumstances require after care with a physical in something like 10% of the cases. Many women eager to have a non- surgical, quiet solution to their "problem" hear what they want to hear. When oversight is as lax as mailing pills to another state which could end up with anyone, then a disaster is inevitable.
First, I highly object to abortion (the taking of an innocent human life in utero) being bandied about like a political football. Would we treat the killing of a human being at any other stage of life so cavalierly?
Second, this man should not waste his time or money on this lawsuit he should devote himself instead to finding a girlfriend, and then a wife, who would not keep killing his babies!
RoseAnne said...
Once I figured out the lawsuit was about the death of the baby, I will say this lawsuit is bonkers despite the fact I am pro-life. If pills mailed from California to another state took the life of a pregnant woman, I would fully support a massive wrongful death suit against the doctor. The pills being discussed are powerful drugs that, even in the best circumstances require after care with a physical in something like 10% of the cases. Many women eager to have a non- surgical, quiet solution to their "problem" hear what they want to hear. When oversight is as lax as mailing pills to another state which could end up with anyone, then a disaster is inevitable.
Should the government open every letter from California to Texas to make sure there are no pills in them? Or only ones from doctors?
What if Doctors use surrogates? Should we have the State monitoring every communication of doctors and patients?
What could go wrong?
You people just do not understand what living in a free high trust society means. So many "Conservatives" don't belong in a free country either and this topic is very good at luring them out of the woodwork.
In Prussia (and other places) there were government officials tasked with monitoring women's periods and pregnancies.
I think there are a lot of American 'conservatives' who would like a system like that.
Rhhardin: “ To parents wanting a baby a fetus is a human. A social relation. To somebody not wanting the pregnancy it's just a medical problem, human tissue that will cause a problem.”
You are conceptually confused.
You will eventually die in one of two ways: natural cause, or homicide. There is no other option.
That is true now, and has been true every instant of your life, which started at conception.
Death is the ending of a life’s future. There is no avoiding this by inventing some “not yet a human” dodge.
By definition, almost all abortions are premeditated murders of convenience; a very small proportion come under justifiable homicide due to an identified threat of death or bodily injury to the woman from continuing the pregnancy.
Abortion relies upon two things: baseless rationalization, and easily hidden bodies.
Of course, he might not be the father.
rhhardin: You yourself are changing the meaning of the word "a human" that encodes all the social interactions owed to a human and owed by a human, to extend it to a fetus without social interactions.
So, RHardin believes it's perfectly fine to murder autistic children, because they "have no social interactions" with other humans.
Just in case you are wondering what kind of monster harden is.
Achilles said...
Why are people going to such lengths to defend this absolutely insane lawsuit?
Do you people not understand the absolute crazy town that results from this being successful?
No, shit for brains, we don't.
And you apparently don't, either, since you've yet to offer a single sane argument against it.
You sound a lot like the scumbags making the "we have to give amnesty to every single illegal alien in America, because it's too hard to deport them all.
But you have not offered so much as a SINGLE "if this lawsuit is allowed then this specific bad thing will happen", probably because you realize that you would get 1 of 2 responses:
1: That thing happens all the time
2: No it wouldn't here's why
Which is why you scream and shout and pound the table, rather than even attempting to make an argument.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.