Texas witnessed the enactment of a novel law regarding abortions last week, a law that seemingly encourages private individuals to file lawsuits against abortion providers based out of state who send abortion medications through mail to Texans. The incentive for these lawsuits is a substantial monetary reward – $100,000, a figure that is tenfold the amount awarded for suing someone involved in assisting a person obtain an abortion within the state lines. Yet, the theoretical prospects of this law have not translated into reality. Upto present, no individual has been victorious in any of these newly inspired lawsuits.
Lawmakers had anticipated the litigation to stem from a young woman, pointing fingers at an abortion provider and potentially an abuser or an individual fervently supportive of abortions, alleging them to have coerced her into undergoing an abortion at a time when she was most susceptible. Contrarily, none of those framed scenarios materialized. The outcomes were far from what the policymakers expected.
Rather, the only lawsuit came from Marcus Silva, brought forward by Jonathan Mitchell, the ‘architect’ of the new bounty-hunting law for abortions. Silva’s motivations diverged dramatically from protecting the sanctity of life, instead aiming to use the lawsuit as leverage over an ex-partner in a personal context. However, even Silva eventually withdrew his case.
In a surprising turn of events, a narrative propagated by an activist, which was instrumental in convincing legislators of the $100,000 abortion pill bounty, has now come under scrutiny. The narrative in question pertained to a woman who complained that her boyfriend clandestinely added abortion medication to her hot cocoa. The doubts surface as the accused, former boyfriend Capt. Christopher Cooprider, has not been legally charged and is currently seeking legal recourse against his ex-partner, Liane Davis, for over $1 billion.
Cooprider defends his case by asserting that Davis actually experienced a spontaneous miscarriage, induced by her own behaviors, and falsely implicated him out of resentment. Cooprider claims that despite a thorough investigation by the police, they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on his part.
Practically speaking, only those in close proximity to the individual consuming the abortion pill would be privy to the fact, hence rendering the actual litigants likely to be abusive partners or deceitful opportunists. These are the same group of people who’ve up until now, been unsuccessful in their attempts with the other bounty laws.
Moreover, it is important to note that the abortion providers who mail medication to Texas are headquartered in states that have instituted legal protections safeguarding them from groundless lawsuits filed by vexatious former partners residing in Texas.
To illustrate, Jonathan Mitchell attempted to prosecute a New York-based doctor for prescribing abortion pills to the ex-girlfriend of a particularly invasive man under a class action lawsuit. The suit was ostensibly on behalf of ‘all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States’. Nonetheless, this ambitious attempt fell flat primarily due to New York’s strong shield laws.
These laws ensure that the county clerk won’t forward such lawsuits filed against out-of-state providers on behalf of individuals like Mitchell, Ken Paxton, or anyone with similar intent. Acting clerk Taylor Bruck, assuring the adherence to the New York State Shield Law, stated that he would reject any such filings brought to his office.
Despite these legal protections, it’s worthy to mention that any attempts to sue doctors may only serve to highlight the importance of keeping abortion legal, including avoiding entanglement with extreme individuals for the rest of one’s life.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding these logical observations, it doesn’t eclipse the possibility of such a law casting a chilling effect. It might foster fear amongst medical professionals about prescribing abortion pills to Texan patients.
Moreover, it could induce a perception among some individuals that they will no longer receive abortion medication through mail, leading them to potentially take more dangerous measures to terminate their pregnancy.
Such scenarios would indeed have dire consequences. But it is hopeful that physicians and patients alike will be mindful of these potential consequences and not allow the legislation from the Texas Government unduly disrupt lives, at least not in this specific context.
The post Unpredicted Outcomes As Texas’s New Abortion Law Takes Effect appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
