If you’ve been following us here at Rewire News Group, you know that we are positively losing it about Texas #SB8, the 6-week (previability) abortion ban set to go into effect in one week.
Well, we’ve got some news on that front so strap in.
We’ve explained in previous threads that #SB8 is utterly bonkers because it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law by snitching on abortion providers and abortion “aiders and abetters.”
Tuegel is asking a state court to rule that #SB8 is unconstitutional.
She’s also asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order against @TXRightToLife barring the organization from filing a lawsuit against her under the Texas law.
Tuegel doesn’t KNOW that Texas Right to Life is planning to sue her, but the TRL published a website last week that invites people to help enforce the law by reporting people who may be violating it.
So @TXRightToLife is gearing up for SOMETHING and Tuegel wants no part of it.
Tuegel is primarily a victims’ rights attorney and part of her job is to counsel her clients about abortion.
Some of those clients may go on to get an abortion. And she’s concerned that makes her liable for “aiding and abetting” an abortion and puts her in TRL’s crosshairs.
Tuegel calls #SB8 a “gross and obvious overreach” that “creates a mercenary society” by deputizing private citizens to enforce the law and allowing everyone except government officials to bring a civil lawsuit against those who violate the law. rewirenewsgroup.com/ablc/2021/08/2…
Tuegel also says the law violates the open courts provision in Texas’ constitution.
That provision guarantees all litigants the right to redress their grievances and the right to have their day in court.
OK, so now you know how attorneys' fees and lawsuit costs operate, let us tell you how Texas is *intentionally* trying to bankrupt lawyers who challenge any of their abortion restrictions.
It is, pardon our french, nonsense.
Under this law, any attorney who challenges any Texas abortion restriction—not just #SB8 but ANY law—and loses ANY of their claims is automatically jointly liable with their client for the other side’s attorneys’ fees.
This is weird, y’all.
If a court orders the losing side to pay the prevailing side’s attorneys’ fees, that burden almost always falls solely on the litigant—not the litigant’s *attorney.*
But it gets worse.
The law fiddles with the definition of “prevailing party.”
Usually, a prevailing party only needs to win their most important claims.
To prevail in a lawsuit under SB 8, you must win EVERY CLAIM YOU BRING.
So, if you’re an attorney like Tuegel, and you challenge any abortion restriction (not just this 6-week ban, but ANY restriction) you either must prevail on every single claim you bring or risk having to cough up money to pay the other side’s costs if your client can’t pay them.
If your first thought is, "what attorney is going to risk having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defend their clients from these frivolous lawsuits brought by abortion snitches?", then congratulations! You get it!
Tuegel says she'll keep counseling her clients about abortion even though she risks her entire law practice doing so, but understandably, not many attorneys are willing to do that.
So a lot of people ensnared by this law won’t be able to find an attorney to represent them.
But this is exactly what Texas Republicans intended when they passed #SB8.
They can’t defend this utterly bs law so they’re gaming the system and stacking the decks against pregnant people. rewirenewsgroup.com/ablc/2021/08/2…
We at Rewire News Group will be following this case closely, so smash that follow button here and on Instagram and let’s all hold hands and make our way through this together.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas ban on the method of abortion most commonly used after 15 weeks’ gestation: dilation and evacuation (D&E).
The Texas law is effectively a 15-week pre-viability abortion ban. And you know what we say about those kinds of bans: They’re unconstitutional!
But the Fifth Circuit ignored the Constitution and upheld Texas’ law anyway.
“Texas has been hellbent on legislating abortion out of existence, and it is galling that a federal court would uphold a law that so clearly defies decades of Supreme Court precedent.” —Nancy Northrup, @ReproRights president and CEO
🧵The federal bench looks a little different after Congress confirmed nine Biden-nominated judges to the federal judiciary this year—four of whom are Black women. Plus, two LGBTQ nominees are awaiting confirmation.
That’s a big deal. Let's get into it:
Until this year, only 8 Black women have been federal appeals court judges.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is the second Black woman to sit on the DC Circuit. She’s a former federal public defender who was nominated to fill Merrick Garland’s vacancy after he was chosen to head @TheJusticeDept.
The @USDA delivered a huge victory for food equity on Monday:
The agriculture department announced it would be changing the way SNAP benefits are calculated, resulting in the largest increase in benefits in history.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides food assistance to 42 million people nationwide. Studies show marginalized Americans are more likely to live with food insecurity and to rely on SNAP benefits.
For example, roughly 13% of LGBTQ adults experience food insecurity—that’s more than *twice* the rate of non-LGBTQ adults.
A large percentage of those receiving SNAP benefits are people of color, disabled, or living below the poverty line.
Happy Friday, law nerds! We’re ending the week with some good news:
This week, Colorado lawmakers expanded access to reproductive health care for survivors of sexual violence and undocumented immigrants.
Jared Polis, @GovofCO, signed SB21-142 into law, ensuring that rape survivors who become pregnant can access abortion care anywhere in the state, and undoing a decades-old restriction that required them to travel to a clinic that Medicaid approved of.
“A patient’s income or ZIP code should never determine their access to quality health care...This new law eliminates additional stress, expense, and inequality.” —Dr. Kristina Tocce @PPRockyMountain vice president
Here's a sentence we don’t get to say often: Last week we got some good news out of Indiana.
A federal judge blocked a new Indiana law that would have required providers to share outright false information with their patients about abortion.
Indiana lawmakers wanted to make providers talk about “abortion reversal”—specifically, to tell patients that they could reverse a medication abortion after they had taken the first of two doses.
This is an entirely bogus claim.
There is no scientific evidence that indicates a medication abortion can be reversed, and leading medical organizations oppose laws that require providers to discuss abortion reversal for that very reason.