Texas Threatens Doctors After Judge Says Woman Can Get Emergency Abortion - eviltoast

“The temporary restraining order granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors or anyone else from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws,” Paxton said in a statement shortly after the judge’s decision. “This includes first degree felony prosecutions…and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.

Paxton added, ominously: “The [judge’s temporary restraining order] will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.”

  • gsfraley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    What an unbelievable piece of shit. This dude is actually a demon and seriously hateful person. He shouldn’t be screaming around at doctors and women for protecting their lives, he should be screaming into pads at a psych hospital.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      He should be screaming at the walls of a prison cell, because he’s a criminal on top of everything else you said.

    • buddhabound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s terrible, and he’s a terrible person. But, I had concerns that this case getting decided too fast would hurt the other case trying to overturn TX’s ban. One of the arguments in the state-wide ban case was that women could go to the court and get permission for abortion as needed. That’s a horrible solution that doesn’t scale, but if this case was too quick to resolve, the court could use it for cover and not have to rule on the overall ban in TX.

      Paxton acting like such an entitled prick about this ruling might actually help both cases survive. This case will get a stronger opinion by the judge, and the other case won’t be able to just point to this case as a “see you don’t need us” scapegoat way out of actually ruling on the larger ban question state-wide.