Texas Anti-abortion Law, Unintended consequences?

As in, what are the possible or likely ones?

The thought that’s been in my head since I first heard of this is that it will have some level of chilling effect on women’s health care in Texas generally. I don’t know if that’s true and if so, how much of an effect, so, in an effort to enlighten myself, I start here.

Do you think the anti-abortion law in Texas will have a negative impact on women’s health care in that state? If so, how severe do you think it will be? Will or could there be even more unintended effects in men’s health care as well?

Well, no exception for, say, an ectopic pregnancy is certainly harmful to a woman’s health.

The law may cause excessive salivation from unscrupulous attorneys.

Not a chilling effect, per se, but many if not most abortion providers offer many services for women, including contraception, routine physicals, breast exams and referrals to specialists. For a lot of women, those clinics are the only affordable place to go. So yes, they will suffer more consequences.

If the Texas law is upheld by the Supreme Court - which is highly unlikely - it would open a Pandora’s Box of malicious lawsuits nationwide because the precedent is now set; people can sue with flimsy or no standing. New York could let people sue gun shops just for selling guns, no matter how legal the gun sales were.

I’m not familiar with how the law is specifically written. Is there really no exception for medical necessity of the mother in there? Thats…I have no words adequate to describe my negative reaction to that idea

What do you mean by “unintended?”

Republican legislators were fully aware of the impact that this legislation would have on women’s health, particularly poor women who utilize clinics that provide abortions for other health care needs. They didn’t care.

The only potential unintended consequence I can see coming out of this is if the number of frivolous lawsuits is so overwhelming that state courts are unable to keep up. Plenty of Republican voters have other business that they need access to the courts for.

The last President was so bad that – IMHO – there was more motivation to see him gone than necessarily to see Biden take the job.

Votes against more than for.

One can hope, if not predict, that this move by Texas will enrage and animate Democratic voters who often get complacent, particularly during midterm elections.

in which case the courts as they are currently stacked will prioritize cases the right wing wants.

well, what I wad thinking was, after a few of these lawsuits, you might start seeing GPs start declining to see women, obgyns leaving the state to practice somewhere there is less likelihood of being sued out of business. Perhaps even a decline in physicians in Texas generally, as I’m not hearing anyone saying that Dr. Smith, the family doctor can’t be sued even if he doesn’t actually offer abortion as a service. What I’m getting is that a physician, regardless of what their specialty is or isn’t can be sued pretty much on suspicion and loses even if they win. Not sure I’d want to practice medicine in a place like that.

The law allows abortions post-six weeks/heartbeat for medical emergencies that endanger the life of the mother. So based on that I would presume a woman with an ectopic pregnancy could get that taken care of in Texas even with this law.

…if they can find a doctor willing to take on the added risk.

It’s not an added risk - an abortion to save the life of the mother is legal.

Of course, someone might still try to file suit, but they wouldn’t get a “bounty” off it.

You’re correct, according to this PDF, which has a 2017 date but is amended. No idea if this is the actual legislation as passed:

My OB/GYN friends point out that a suit could still be filed against them and they would incur the legal expense of their defense even if they prevailed. They are also not convinced that responding to an ectopic pregnancy would actually be allowed by their medical systems because they may not be permitted to perform any abortions in order to stop protesters from harassing and turning in everyone who enters the facility. One points to Ohio’s weird bill that the ectopic embryo must be reimplanted in the uterus, which as far as I know isn’t possible.

Or a couple of dozen suits. And I’m unconvinced that any of them would really be trying to get the “bounty”.

A lot of you are presenting intended consequences, or consequences that the lawmakers don’t care about. But one consequence that they certainly didn’t intend is that now, anyone in the country can sue the lawmakers themselves, and all of the normal legal safeguards that prevent frivolous lawsuits no longer apply.

I’ve found it difficult enough at times to get into a Planned Parenthood clinic due to threatening, vile protesters even not in Texas, as an obviously post-menopausal woman, going in for a routine exam. I weep for the women of Texas, especially those without means or far from a border.

Make no mistake, the carefully crafted language is a long time in the making and is absolutely insidious.

Lawyers can still get into trouble for filing frivolous lawsuits against the lawmakers. But lawsuits against those aiding women getting actual abortions even if they can later be proven to be a medical emergency?

Open. Season.

How so?

The main thing is eliminating the need for standing. Or in other words statutorily giving anybody standing to sue even if they are not personally affected by the actions of whomever they are suing.