Arkansas man sues Texas doctor who admitted he violated state's strict new abortion law

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  4 weeks ago  •  37 comments

By:   Daniel Barnes, Chloe Atkins and Dartunorro Clark

Arkansas man sues Texas doctor who admitted he violated state's strict new abortion law
An Arkansas man sued a Texas abortion provider in what is believed to be the first lawsuit filed since the state's controversial abortion law was enacted.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



An Arkansas man sued a Texas abortion provider Monday in what is believed to be the first lawsuit filed since the state's restrictive abortion law was enacted.

The man, Oscar Stilley, a former lawyer who was convicted of federal tax evasion in 2009, sued Dr. Alan Braid, a Texas physician who publicly admitted to performing an abortion that was illegal under the new law, known as S.B. 8.

The law, which the Supreme Court declined to block from going into effect this month, includes a provision that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and awards them $10,000 if they are successful.

Braid, who provides abortion care in San Antonio, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Saturday that he violated the new law on the morning of Sept. 6.

Braid wrote that he "provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state's new limit," adding, "I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.

1632158860631_now_dayside_abortion_texas_210920_1920x1080-194fz6.jpg

Why Texas doctor defied new abortion law despite possible legal consequences


"I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested," he wrote.

In 2009, Stilley was convicted of one count of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and two counts of tax evasion. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and is finishing his sentence on home confinement, according to the filing.

In the lawsuit, Stilley refers to himself as a "disbarred and disgraced" former lawyer while describing the charges he was convicted of as "utterly fraudulent."

Stilley claimed that he called Braid's office Monday and asked whether Braid would "repent of his ideology as well as his deeds" but that he wasn't able to "secure any such agreement despite respectful efforts," according to the lawsuit.

Stilley, who is representing himself, is seeking $100,000 or at least the $10,000 minimum that the Texas law requires be awarded for a successful suit.

Braid didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Over the weekend, the Center for Reproductive Rights issued a statement pledging to defend him against lawsuits.

"Dr. Braid has courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law. We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that S.B. 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care," Nancy Northup, the group's president and CEO, said in the statement.

"For more than two weeks this unconscionable law has been in effect, harming numerous Texans, and falling hardest on those struggling to make ends meet and people of color, who already face barriers to health care. It's past time for a court to step in and block it," she said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  Kavika     4 weeks ago
In 2009, Stilley was convicted of one count of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and two counts of tax evasion. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and is finishing his sentence on home confinement, according to the filing.

Does anyone else suspect that this lawsuit is a con job?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1    4 weeks ago

big time. just waiting for the name of the money raising scam to be announced. if he declares a candidacy for elected office he can legally evade some taxes, this time...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @1    4 weeks ago

Nah! Not from a crooked lawyer!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Kavika @1    4 weeks ago
Does anyone else suspect that this lawsuit is a con job?

Wait, how can someone from Arkansas sue a doctor in Texas, under a Texas law, not an Arkansas law?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
1.3.1  evilgenius  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3    4 weeks ago
Wait, how can someone from Arkansas sue a doctor in Texas, under a Texas law, not an Arkansas law?

The Tx law says "anybody" can sue.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  evilgenius @1.3.1    4 weeks ago
The Tx law says "anybody" can sue.

Wow.......

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.3.3  Split Personality  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.2    4 weeks ago

Texas is overstepping.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.3    4 weeks ago

Texas is overstepping.

They're putting all their chickens in Trump's Supreme Court basket.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.4    4 weeks ago

a good chance this case will come up very short of that basket.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  devangelical @1.3.5    3 weeks ago
a good chance this case will come up very short of that basket.

Even the current SCOTUS will have a very very hard time coming up with an excuse to uphold that law.  To do so, they would literally have to ignore dozens of legal precedents.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
1.3.7  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    3 weeks ago

Agreed.  I believe SCOTUS refused to hear the original TX case on a technicality due to the new way TX wrote the law on who can sue. It's no longer the state suing to prevent abortion. As far as the law goes I believe abortion is not illegal in the State of Texas, but the law allows ANYBODY to sue ANYBODY/EVERYBODY around an abortion so the end result is abortions are not happening out of the fear of being sued. The law itself needs to be struck down.  There is a long string of precedent supporting this.

Of course none of this would be necessary if we could get partisan politics out of the way, but the political parties are biased and play to their base.  It's all about getting elected / re-elected..  and nothing to do with what is best for the people.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.7    3 weeks ago
but the political parties are biased and play to their base.

The reason they have a "base", is because that Base", believes largely in the same things.

Plus, the republican party is NOT playing to their base, they are playing to their wealthy overlords.

Majority of republicans wanted a bipartisan 1/6 investigation.

Majority of republicans want legal abortions.

Majority of republicans want tax increases on the super wealthy.

Majority of republicans support the infrastructure bill.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Kavika @1    4 weeks ago

There are actually two law suites filed by two different people in two different states NOT Tx. They both claim to be pro-choice and want the courts to rule on the law itself AND the "anybody" can sue wording in the law.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @1    4 weeks ago

Every law suit requires standing, where was he injured by this?

why $100,000 when the "reward" is posted as $10,000.00 ?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.5.1  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @1.5    4 weeks ago

Based on what I have read about it, the law gives EVERYONE standing. The SCOTUS will have to decide it that is the proper use of the civil courts, which have always been used as a remedy for personal harm. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  Kavika @1    4 weeks ago

I think that both are colluding to create a case that the Supreme Court can use to overturn the Texas law.  Bad unsympathetic lawyer suing an out of state doctor.  Total set up.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
1.6.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.6    3 weeks ago

A righteous reaction to an unrighteous overreach in a backwards state.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.6.1    3 weeks ago

I'm doing my best to make it less backward

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.6.3  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.6.2    3 weeks ago
I'm doing my best to make it less backward

... get closer and use hollow points.                    /s                                                                                      

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2  Hal A. Lujah    4 weeks ago

I was a little torn on this, but I’m thinking that this guy (and the other guy in Illinois) are just ahead of the curve and actually doing a good thing.  The law is ridiculous, the Supreme Court is ridiculous, and the quicker the ridiculousness of this issue is advanced and exposed the better.  He aims to get paid and I’m okay with that, since he is taking a huge risk himself, IMO.  Tensions are high on both sides of this issue and those who decide to stick their necks out risk possible personal harm to themselves.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2    4 weeks ago

I admire the doctor who said he performed the abortion because his patient had a right to care. I also think the good doctor did this to push a lawsuit and maybe get the stupid law overturned

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    4 weeks ago

I totally agree with you, Trout. I think other doctors should consider doing the same. If you think about it, these civil cases brought on doctors are also a get cash quick for both the lawyers and the individuals. What a mad, mad, world.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

I’d go a step further and say it would make sense for the pro choice movement to not only break this law early and often, but to also fund the numerous lawsuits and damages from their own plaintiffs like a self feeding machine that serves to clog up the judicial system.  Law enforcement is powerless to intervene so beat them at their own game.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

Again, I would have to agree.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    4 weeks ago

I'm in the process of reading this fool's disbarment report .  He's headed for super-grifter status. 

He also has a website called BustingTheFeds.com .   You can tell he's trying to be slick and practice law without practicing law.  The comments are a hoot.  "Fuck you!" "You suck!"  "It's a good thing you can't leave your house!"  Then there's the guy that suggested everyone read the disbarment report. 

Oh, and supposedly he wrote a book dispensing legal advice on how to stick it to the federal government.  He's claiming it was just published.  I'm sure...right up to the point when his printer ran out of ink. 

He must be one of the stupidest federal inmates ever.  Blessed with home confinement to serve the rest of his sentence, and he brings all this negative attention on himself.  He'll be looking out the window one day soon and see a non-descript white van stop in front of his house...  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3    4 weeks ago

And yet he might be the perfect person for the job.  It just helps illustrate what kind of environment Texas is fostering that a schmuck straight from prison release can use this new law to personally profit from.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1    4 weeks ago

Why did I see this coming?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    4 weeks ago

I just think it is almost comical. For years we have heard republicans complain about people wanting to legislate through the court system.

Yet now, that is exactly what they are doing, with every abortion bill that comes down the pipe.

Hell, my reps even admitted it. That they write these laws and put them in place precisely because of the SC makeup and they think they may pull out a win.

So yes, republicans are trying to legislate through the court system.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @4    4 weeks ago

they telegraph what activities they're guilty of doing and their future moves by projecting them upon the opposition.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
5  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

Have you read interviews with the doctor in question? He not only admits it; he is openly defiant about it. He wants to be sued; so he got what he wanted- and the left are upset.

Give some people what they want; and the left will still bitch about it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @5    4 weeks ago

The "left" (hint, it's not just the left. This is a women's issue), is upset over an outrageous law, meant to limit reproductive rights. The doctor is doing us all a favor by showing how stupid and unfair this law is. 

The only thing that people are "bitch about" is when the government feels they have the right to inject themselves into another person's life. Odd that the very people who don't have a problem with that, would have a problem if the government did the same thing with mandated vaccines. Ironic. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    3 weeks ago

I've always wondered at that bit of irony. Conservatives scream about privacy rights until it comes to a woman's uterus. Then they are all up in our business so to speak

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
5.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    3 weeks ago

First of all I could care less about the law. I believe in state's rights. If people don't like the law there is nothing stopping them from moving out of Texas. Of course that might change Texas back to Red from Purple; and crush Democrats hopes of ever turning it Blue.

Second, I am not wrong about the doctor- he was looking to get sued, so he is getting his wish. He can have his day in court. The article I read about him stated he knew he was violating the law and he didn't care. I am shocked it is only 1 person suing him; I don't think the Texas law set a limit- so they could have thousands of lawsuits against him. Didn't sound like he was going to stop violating the law either- so each separate offense is subject to suit. 

He was very proud of having delivered 10,000 babies. Funny, while he is proud of his abortion stance he wouldn't say how many abortions he has done. Chances are the number would dwarf the number he has delivered. Not good for optics. 

People that have no problem with abortion on demand; and a "women's body is her own" have no problem with mandates forcing people to get shots (Please stop calling them vaccines. Vaccines cure things and eradicate diseases. The Covid shots are similar to the flu shot; you can still get the flu- and depending on the variant/strain it can be just as nasty and life threatening.) Biden and mandaters have no problem with one size fits all make everyone get the shots regardless of medical conditions, medicines they are on, physical condition, or religious or personal beliefs. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion; Biden is trying to force everyone to get the Covid shots- that is a very real distinction. Yes, it is very ironic. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Political parties playing to their base. Politicians are more interested in getting re-elected than in doing what is right for the people. I can guarantee if the Democratic party was widely supported by the Evangelicals then the Democratic party would be behind preventing abortions. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

then I wouldn't be a democrat. I prefer principles over party affiliation

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

That's why I'm a registered Independent. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
I believe in state's rights.

Do you 'believe' in the Constitution? 

Vaccines cure things and eradicate diseases.

False. 

The Covid shots are similar to the flu shot; you can still get the flu- and depending on the variant/strain it can be just as nasty and life threatening.

Covid VACCINES are similar to Flu VACCINES. 

Biden and mandaters have no problem with one size fits all make everyone get the shots regardless of medical conditions, medicines they are on, physical condition, or religious or personal beliefs.

Another false statement. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






zuksam
Wheel
Colour Me Free
Gordy327
JBB


22 visitors