Agreed. No-one is suggesting our countries (UK/Australia) are perfect because they’re not, and we all have issues which need addressing, but US Culture War stuff that’s not actually an issue in our countries isn’t it and it muddies the waters quite significantly.
One of my fears is that it’s going to be imported to the UK thanks to all the influence from US media and social media. No one wants that kind of insane polarisation. But I think it’s happening already - some of my in-laws are Trump fans who love fake news, and surprise surprise, they have turned into antivaxxers, too.
While Miller is correct, it is also true that as of June 2020 large (15+ employees) employers in all 50 states are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. The case was Bostock v. Clayton County.
Since 2012, EEOC policy has been that large employers in all 50 states have been prohibited from discriminating on the basis of gender identity.
~Max
Let’s not forget that one of the most prominent antivaxxers in the UK is Piers Corbyn, brother of former Labour leader Jeremy. Here, the antivax lunacy is still a bit more ecumenical.
In addition to thinking this law is despicable, I don’t understand how HIPAA works in relation to this (or the other way around). Anyone in the country can sue someone, who then has to prove that that a woman has not had an abortion in order to avoid a $10,000 “award” (not fine). Doesn’t that force the defendant (who might someone only tangentially related to the defendant, like the Uber driver who gives her a ride) to then access the woman’s medical records? I truly don’t understand how this is legal.
Also, please tell me again how I’m wrong to worry about losing rights and protections.
They’re Un-American fuckers that want a war. They don’t care about dying for what they “believe” in, whatever that may be.
They’re complete garbage.
Every single Texas republican needs to be sued by somebody for having an abortion. Sue them, their spouses, daughters, etc. Let them come to court once per week to prove that they didn’t. Fill the courts with stupid lawsuits. Unintended consequences.
That’s why I posted the article here in this thread, Sunny. Your comment made me think about this action Texas is taking.
I’m never going to need an abortion, but I care about other women having access to this safe and legal procedure when they need it. I feel like I need to do something, but I don’t know what.
Don’t forget, it’s not just those who receive abortions, but anyone who aids or abets.
So sue their sons and fathers, too.
Worse, people can likely be sued even for assisting someone who’s having an abortion in a jurisdiction where it’s legal. And that raises another question: what is “assistance”? If someone gives a friend or family member a phone number for Planned Parenthood, is that “assistance”? Obviously, this radical anti-abortion trend is troubling, for it reveals a commitment to oppression and social control.
A development that is no less troubling is DeSantis defying a judge’s ruling outright. We’ve seen more and more Republicans not only talk openly about attacking the judiciary and undermining it as an institution with rhetoric, but actually attempting to use executive and legislative power to undercut its independence.
Okay, let’s say Joe the angry ex sues Jane, claiming Jane had an abortion after the heartbeat standard. Joe’s lawyer wants to produce the medical records that will prove Jane had an abortion, but there are certain rules about producing evidence in court.
First of all the clinic isn’t going to give just anybody records, because that is opening themselves up for liability for violating HIPAA.
Joe’s lawyer is supposed to ask Jane’s lawyer to voluntarily produce records first. Jane’s lawyer will decline the request for production on the basis of medical records being privileged.
Next Joe’s lawyer can try a subpoena duces tecum, which requires the court’s approval. Subpoenas are an exception to the privacy of medical records. Jane’s lawyer will be notified and will have a chance to ask that the judge quash the subpoena, but in this case the records requested are likely to be highly relevant and the judge will probably okay the subpoena. Likewise the records custodian may ask the court for a qualified protective order (a promise that the records will only be used for the present litigation and not for any other purpose), in fact must ask for one if Jane declines to personally sign off on the subpoena. The court may in sensitive situations call for the records to be presented to the court itself rather than to the moving party’s lawyers. In such cases the judge will personally review the records for relevancy or appoint a special master before releasing them to either party. In this way if Jane had also discussed STDs or other potentially embarrassing but irrelevant information at the clinic, Joe the angry ex doesn’t get a hold of that.
But realistically before even getting to rules of evidence Jane’s lawyers will ask for the law to be invalidated as unconstitutional undue burden on aborting a nonviable fetus in light of Planned Parenthood v Casey.
~Max, not a lawyer
Thank you, that was helpful. My understanding of the new law, admittedly cursory, is that anyone has standing to sue, and they can sue anyone “involved” including people who have no direct involvement, but might have tangential ones (like the Uber driver who gives the woman a ride to the clinic). It seems like huge over-reach on multiple fronts. I’m glad that there are legal grounds to dispute this law. I just hope they work.
Okay. Reading the actual law nobody would sue Jane, only the staff at planned parenthood and her insurance company if they paid any claims. If there was a service Jane used to find a place to get the abortion, like a help-I’m-pregnant-need-abortion hotline, they could be named as co-defendants. I’m not sure whether a ride service like Uber or a public bus would be liable, it may depend on whether Jane told them or they had reason to believe Jane would be getting an abortion. The statute reads
may bring a civil action against any person who […] knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion
Keyword knowingly.
Jane’s lawyers would still be notified at every step above mentioned so it doesn’t make a difference who is sued as far as her protections go.
And again there are tons of clearly unconstitutional provisions in this law, such as the provision saying it is no defense to rely on a court decision declaring the law unconstitutional, because if the appeal court reverses you get ex-post-facto liability.
~Max
Thank you!
On topic, both UltraVires and I think Roe and Planned Parenthood should be overturned. But we’re both solidly against this Texas law, as evidenced in the GD topic.
~Max
Your comments about HIPAA bring up an interesting point. The patient herself cannot be sued by these lawsuits, so who approves the release of her medical information to prove she had an abortion? Unless the patient approves the release of the medical records, the plaintiff can’t demonstrate that the woman had anything more than a pap smear.
Of course, this could probably be obviated by a court order for the records, but does the state have the authority to override a Federal law in this regard?
I hadn’t considered how HIPAA could play into all of this.
???
The threat of liability under HIPAA is a check on the clinic itself. But a court order - the subpoena - removes that liability for releasing records without patient consent. In fact it threatens the clinic with a new liability for ignoring the court.
So the judge is the one who approves the release. State or federal, doesn’t matter.
~Max
It’s a well-known stereotype of a social justice activist/people with other assorted malfunctions.