Happy Friday…enjoy.

“Reports of my demise, have been greatly exaggerated” -I’m still here in my tiny corner —trying to pump out facts & snark…mainly snark. Also USA v Texas case update. EXPEDITED

“I have come to believe that caring for myself is not self-indulgent. Caring for myself is an act of survival.” -Audre Lorde

Fact Check = Entirely True

Last week I casually mentioned that I needed to take a break -because my objectivity had become obscured. I allowed my own frustrations with the prosectors. Their haphazard threshold for Pretrial Detention. The numerous lackluster briefs, sans any articulated sense of urgency, and then, the various plea agreements etc…pushed me to a point that I wasn’t simply reporting facts.

Being objective is paramount. Meaning facts don’t have feelings. Nor do facts need to amp up the drama. The thing is, facts stand on their own. Or at least facts should. Nonetheless I decided to indulge in some long overdue self-care. The family is fine. I’m fine.. and my cat/dog suddenly realized…

USA v TEXAS, TX-SB8 -case update

Recommended best practices, I’d urge you to quickly review the previous complaint the DOJ filed late last week. I genuinely think reading the deeper dive offers you a fbctualy based foundation Also when people start criticizing Attorney General Garland. Your dubious “narrative” Attorney General Garland needs to “show us everything, right now, game over, bring them all back and —. You’ve flipped floppe

USA v Texas - a deeper dive into the Complaint

Recent Court filings concerning the case USA v Texas

• MOTION to Exceed Page Limitations for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by United States Of America. See WDTX-ECF

• MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Amanda Hainsworth for State of Massachusetts, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, District of Columbia, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, State of Wisconsin, Joshua H. Stein. See WDTX-ECF (the court has yet to rule on this Amici. https://www.scribd.com/document/525694732/Motion-for-Leave-to-Amici-Curiae

  EMERGENCY MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order or MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by United States Of America. See WDTX-ECF or see https://www.scribd.com/document/525695073/Usa-v-Texas-Re-Tro-TX-sb8

  • Exhibit #1 — Declaration of Allison Gilbert, M.D or https://www.scribd.com/document/525695231/Exhibit-1-Declaration-of-Allison-Gilbert-M-D

  • Exhibit #2 — Declaration of Lisa Newman

  • Exhibit #3 — Declaration of Amy Hagstrom Miller

  • Exhibit #4 — Declaration of Melaney A. Linton

  • Exhibit #5 — Declaration of Rebecca Tong

  • Exhibit #9 — Declaration of Alix McLearen, PhD.

• ORDER, Set Motion Hearing for 8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

• Leave to File Amicus Brief and Proposed Amici Curiae Brief

• ORDER, Set Motion Hearing for 8 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (set for 10/1/2021 at 9:00 AM)

• Proposed Scheduling Order for Expedited Briefing on Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by USA

Preliminary Injunction four factors

Generally speaking, the Court must consider the following;

1. …plaintiff shows a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits;

2. …showing of irreparable injury to plaintiff if relief is not granted;

3. …the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction

4. Balancing of equities - public interest.

…numerous jurisdictional obstacles…

…the SB-8 intent was/is create numerous jurisdictional obstacles to the ability of women…United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot insulate itself from judicial review for its constitutional violations and to protect the important federal interests that S.B. 8 impairs. Accord￾ingly, this Court should enjoin enforcement of S.B. 8.

What is crystal clear, the underlying intent of S.B. 8’s draconian provisions; intentionally deprive Texas women of their constitutional rights. All while simultaneously preventing any court (both State of Texas and Federal Courts) from enjoining the statute’s enforcement. That kind of duplicity is an affront to our judicial system and common sense

And as previously discussed. TX-SB-8 uses the threat of civil liability to dissuade the woman and any of her close family and friends would be targeted by the TX-SB8 bounty hunters. What’s also vexing is anyone (and I mean anyone) can sue you. Meaning you don’t have to be an actual resident of Texas to claim your up to $10K+ bounty.. The jurisdictional roadblocks are an epic disaster.

“S.B. 8 also contains a one-way fee-shifting provision that allows successful plaintiffs to recover their costs and attorney’s fees, but forbids defendants sued under S.B. 8 from recovering their fees and costs.”

TX-SB8 could create a class of potential plaintiffs who might file harassing lawsuits, stacks the decks of such suits in favor of the plaintiffs—through the one-way fee-shifting system and the systematic limitation of affirmative defenses—and extends liability to anyone who plays any role in facilitating a prohibited abortion

S.B. 8’s provisions is to deprive women of their constitutional rights while simultaneously preventing any court from enjoining the statute’s enforcement. TX-SB8 uses the threat of civil liability ¹ to cut off the supply of post-six-week abortions in the State. It creates a widespread class of potential plaintiffs who might file harassing lawsuits, stacks the decks of such suits in favor of the plaintiffs—through the one-way fee-shifting system and the systematic limitation of affirmative defenses—and extends liability to anyone who plays a role in facilitating a prohibited abortion. Thus far, the statute has had the desired effect of deterring abortion providers from offering virtually any abortions.

IMPACTS OF TX-SB8 ON PATIENTS

Again no woman is ever happy about seeking an abortion. The adverse impacts on Texas women, particularly those women of color, it is, both shocking and horrifying…the impact and intent of TX-SB8 are clear. They want to subjugate women.

S.B. 8 has gravely and irreparably impaired women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion across the State…beginning September 1, abortion providers in Texas ceased providing abortions after six weeks, absent a medical emergency, which likely amounts to between 85 and 95% of all abortions previously provide…One Planned Parenthood affiliate provided 205 abortions in the week before S.B. 8 went into effect and only 52 abortions in the week after the law went into effect.

..on average patients are traveling 650 miles each way to reach abortion clinics in the southwest…

Some women with the ability to travel are forced to seek treatment options in Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado where abortion providers have been overwhelmed with Texas residents unable to obtain abortions in Texas.

Patients from Texas are traveling sometimes five to eight hours each way to get to a health center in Oklahoma… on average patients are traveling 650 miles each way to reach abortion clinics in the southwest.. (detailing trips of 790 miles, 930 miles, 1000 miles each way). One minor, who was raped by a family member, traveled eight hours from Galveston to Oklahoma to get an abortion

649% increase in Texan patients…

Setting aside the “intent” by the chief architects of SB-8– it’s pretty horrifying what Texas lawmakers are willing to. It’s as if Texans want to regress back to a

S.B. 8 took effect, clinics in Tulsa and Oklahoma City have “seen an overall staggering 646% increase of Texan patients” as compared to the first six months of the year. Yap Decl. ¶¶ 14-16. One provider there described the “surge of Texas patients” who are “scared and frantically trying to get appointments” in a state outside of Texas. Yap Decl. ¶ 13.

Texas residents are claiming between 50% and 75% of appointments available at Planned Parenthood’s Oklahoma health centers, causing women in Oklahoma to face scheduling backlogs of several weeks.

So expedited consideration it is…

…In light of Defendant State of Texas’s… representations to the Court that it opposes the Motion and wishes to be heard before the Court resolves the Motion, the Court finds that briefing and expedited consideration of the requested preliminary injunction is appropriate. Accordingly, a preliminary injunction hearing is set for October 1, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

The Court issues the following briefing schedule:

1. Texas shall file its response to the Motion no later than 9:00 a.m. on September 29, 2021

2. The United States shall file its reply, if any, prior to the hearing and no later than 9:00 a.m. on October 1, 2021.

So for now we’ll have to wait — I do get the strong impression, with every passing day the situation in Texas only goes from bad to worse. And clearly time is of the essence… you can download the various September 15, 2021 filings via my Scribd Account as I’m periodically uploading the filings as my limited schedule permits. Of the hundreds of pages recently filed the declarations provide a lot of real life injuries and what women in Texas are facing.

At the time you might have disagreed with my initial assessment of TX-SB8 -and the disproportionate impact on women of color because that’s exactly what this draconian and medieval law does. Meaning it further impacts marginalized communities. And it is vulgar to see just how far these Texas Republicans would go. A reckoning is on the horizon for Texas and more broadly the Republican Party. And voters in Texas should use their power at the ballot box because this is the single most threat to a woman’s constitutional right and that can not be allowed to stand.

-Filey

1. Why can’t we talk about TX-SB8 -Statute of Limitations— it’s a six year clock.