General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law
@chrisgeidner
Breaking: US District Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law and has barred defendant prosecutors from enforcing them.
More to come ...


This all comes in a case about discussing, funding, and supporting out-of-state abortions (Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton).
The 52-page ruling:
courtlistener.com
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Link to tweet
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,619 posts)So, this ruling basically states that that Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans are no longer good law and has barred defendant prosecutors from enforcing them.
It sounds like good news. I hope it is.
crickets
(26,168 posts)Link to full thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1629237990404034561.html
Excerpt of conclusion:
* Paxton is dismissed (b/c he can't enforce pre-Roe bans or SB8, and HB1280 doesn't apply to abortions out of Texas)
* Local prosecutors are enjoined from enforcing pre-Roe abortion bans (even though, and b/c, they have already been repealed by implication)
This does not change abortion rights on the ground in Texas, but it does provide a ruling that backs those in Texas who are supporting people seeking out-of-state abortions with an injunction against prosecutors using pre-Roe bans and a strong court ruling on HB1280's limits.
ShazzieB
(22,582 posts)The idea of one state wanting to control what happens in another state, under that other state's laws, really grinds my gears. As the resident of a blue state that is happy to provide reproductive health care to people from states with draconian abortion laws, I say: MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS, TEXASS!
MayReasonRule
(4,099 posts)"As to HB1280 (Texas's so-called "trigger law"
specifically, Pitman notes that, while politicians including Paxton have made threats about extra-territorial enforcement, that's not what the law says. (Pp. 28-29.) "
In sum, the Court is faced with an unusual pre-enforcement challenge. H.B. 1280, employing
all standard means of statutory construction, cannot apply extraterritorially or regulate Plaintiffs
desired conduct. Yet Paxton and others, for the deliberate purpose of deterring funds from
facilitating out-of-state abortions, have suggested the opposite. If H.B. 1280 were at all ambiguous,
the Court would find that Plaintiffs conduct is arguably covered by the law. But H.B. 1280 is
unambiguousit does not penalize out-of-state abortions, and as such, does not penalize conduct
related to out-of-state abortions. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs conduct is not arguably
covered by H.B. 1280 and will grant Paxtons motion to dismiss.
"Note that Pitman drops a "what if they try anyway" footnote, saying, more or less, "come back if they try it." "
16 While the Court dismisses Plaintiffs H.B. 1280 claims without prejudice, it recognizes that there may be
certain situations where the statutory analysis changes. For example, the analysis might change if a local
prosecutor imminently threatens charges for funding out-of-state abortions or an opinion from the Attorney
Generals office declares it illegal. See Hill v. City of Houston, 789 F.2d at 116465 (finding standing for
overbreadth where the city prosecuted and did not disavow a broad reading of the ordinance).
Borrowing from Willie, i.e. My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys
Nat-C's have always been losers, and they still are it seems...
Sadly in search of, and one step in back of, the truth, and one damned reasoned thing...
May reason rule.
peppertree
(23,336 posts)It is what it is.