Recently, Texas unveiled a new legislation that incentivizes private citizens to legally pursue out-of-state abortion providers who distribute abortion pills through mail to Texas locals. Astonishingly, they stand a chance to win a sum of $100,000 — a reward that is tenfold higher than any slated for those who sue facilitators or providers of abortion within the state. This, however, remains a theoretical possibility, as, thus far, no individual has emerged victorious in such litigation related to abortion providers.
The envisioned litigant was a young female claiming to have been duped into procuring an abortion whilst in a vulnerable state perhaps by an abortion provider or by some abortion enthusiast trying to manipulate her. The reality, though, vastly differs from this conjecture. Jonathan Mitchell, labeled the ‘mastermind’ behind this controversial legislation, could only find Marcus Silva, a man seemingly more interested in exploiting the potential of litigation to exert influence over his ex-partner than genuinely advocating the sanctity of life.
Interestingly, Silva, who initially appeared to be a potential lawsuit champion, withdrawn his involvement. Adding to the twist, the narrative used by one advocate to promote the hefty $100,000 reward — a tale of a woman whose partner secretly administered abortion medication with her beverage — might be baseless. The accused ex-partner, Christopher Cooprider, has not been formally charged and is now pursuing a legal battle against his ex-girlfriend, Liane Davis for an astronomical sum of over a billion dollars.
Cooprider attests that Davis experienced a self-induced miscarriage and deceitfully attributed it to him in retaliation. She even went to the extent of lodging a police complaint, but the authorities found no credible evidence suggesting any criminal activity. It’s noteworthy that only those intimate with the person who takes an abortion pill would become privy to such sensitive information. Consequently, those genuinely concerned about the individual would hesitate to inflict such legal trouble, leaving the field wide open for exploiters and scam artists.
These individuals, however, have not experienced any success in their legal pursuits as per the existing abortion bounty hunting legislation. Another significant point to bear in mind is that abortion providers who mail medication to Texas and other states with similar abortion restrictions are functioning within states armed with legal shields to protect them from frivolous lawsuits instigated by resentful ex-partners from Texas.
Jonathan Mitchell, having previously failed at suing a New York-based physician for prescribing abortion pills to an estranged partner of one perturbing individual, presents a fitting illustration of this. He even attempted to file a class action lawsuit as a representative of ‘all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States.’ However, his efforts proved futile. Why? Because New York’s protective shield law prevented the acceptance of that lawsuit.
Taylor Bruck, the acting clerk, reflecting upon the situation, cited New York State Shield Law as the basis for his refusal to file such lawsuits and committed to maintaining this stance for any future similar applications. He refrained from delving into detailed discussions due to the likelihood of ensuing legal confrontations.
Any attempt made by individuals to sue these clinicians would only serve to reaffirm a strong argument for legalizing abortion — avoiding lifelong ties with individuals of unstable nature. However, it is disheartening to anticipate that this legislation might invoke apprehension, potentially deterring some physicians from prescribing pills to their Texan patients.
Fear may also grip patients, making them believe they can no longer access abortion medication via mail, forcing them to potentially resort to less safe alternatives to terminate their pregnancies. This outcome, if transformed into reality, would be highly undesirable and harmful.
It is our fervent hope that medical professionals and patients will stay informed and prevent the Texas government from wreaking havoc in their lives through this particular method. The law, though seeming to offer a potential financial incentive, has so far only managed to create a cloud of controversy and fear.
In its intent and actions, the law appears to be more about controlling and manipulating individual choices than about protecting the sanctity of life. With its lack of success to date, and the potential harms it could cause, it remains a point of intense debate and criticism.
While it is too early to gauge the long-term impacts of such a law, initial indications suggest an escalating tension between individual rights, state policies, and the interpretations of personal freedom and safety. As the law is tested further in courts and in practice, the enduring impacts will unfold.
Until then, it remains incumbent upon the medical community and informed citizens to do their best to navigate these treacherously complicated legal waters, while advocates on either side of this polarizing issue continue to argue the merits and demerits of such legislation.
The post The New Texas Abortion Law: A Bounty Hunting Expedition appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
