Texas man sues three women for helping his ex-wife obtain abortion pills
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Everything Else
CrystalRaindrops — 3 years ago(March 13, 2023 11:12 PM)
A Texas man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing three women of helping his ex-wife obtain abortion pills, in one of the first major legal challenges under a state abortion ban since the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Plaintiff Marcus Silva filed the lawsuit on Thursday in Galveston County, Texas, alleging that three Texas women are liable for wrongful death because they helped his ex-wife obtain abortion pills to terminate a pregnancy in July 2022. The civil lawsuit is seeking damages of $1 million against each woman.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, eliminating federal abortion rights, Texas has been one of about a dozen states that has enforced a total abortion ban. It is illegal to "aid or abet" abortions in Texas, which the lawsuit claims defendants Jackie Noyola, Amy Carpenter and Aracely Garcia did.
"Defendants Noyola, Carpenter, and Garcia all knew that they were aiding or abetting a self-managed abortion, which is a wrongful act and a criminal act of murder under Texas law," the lawsuit argued.
Brittni Silva, who divorced her husband in February, according to the lawsuit, is not a defendant and is exempt from criminal or civil liability under state law.
Photos of text messages apparently between Brittni Silva, Noyola and Carpenter, attached as exhibitions in the court documents, show the women discussing Silva's pregnancy and her desire to get abortion pills in Texas.
"If I don't have to travel that would make things so much easier," Silva wrote, according to the screenshots.
Noyola and Carpenter offer links to websites where people can order the two-pill regimen, and both offered to let Silva self-manage her abortion at their homes, the text message screenshots show.
The lawsuit alleges that Garcia, the third defendant, facilitated the delivery of the pills to Houston.
Marcus Silva is represented by lawyers Briscoe Cain, who is a Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, and Jonathan Mitchell, who is credited as an architect of the six-week ban in Texas that took effect in September 2021. That law banned abortion starting at six weeks of pregnancy, and it introduced a novel enforcement mechanism; it invited citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone they believed violated the law by aiding, abetting or providing an abortion to a woman past that point, for damages exceeding $10,000.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-man-sues-3-women-helping-his-ex-wife-obtain-abortion-pills-2023-03-12/ -
JustinCase — 3 years ago(March 13, 2023 11:31 PM)
I wonder when she did this.
While she was married to him or after the divorce?
Was it even his child?
I also wonder if it was his child if he would have helped with expenses and raising it.
If not then one should see why that was a motivation to terminate it and she should not be blamed.
I find it odd that he can do this in civil court even though none of them have been criminally charged and that his ex wife is excepted from the lawsuit.
Another case of men sticking their nose into women's business where it does not belong and doing all they can to control them.
If men could get pregnant, there would never be illegal abortions anywhere.
You think we want to go through that?
We can't even be bothered to take out the trash or ask for directions when we get lost.
How you die does not redeem how you lived. - A black pastor on the life and death of Charlie Kirk -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 01:09 AM)
Unless there is money involved, there has to be other reasons. He could be bitter over the divorce and if they are abortion pills, they are for short term pregnancies in most cases I believe.
There is more to the story here. Was she pregnant due to him? Can this be proven? Did she do it to spite him too? Friends helping out friends over a human rights issue, not to mention a contentious issue, this could prove way too messy as well. Shark Lawyers also need to be careful for their own legal reputations.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
CrystalRaindrops — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 05:15 AM)
I haven't looked into it much, so I don't know if some of those questions are answered in other articles.
It doesn't say this in the article, but a news anchor talking about this story the other day also said the man is suing the manufacturers of the pills.
In a related story, some republicans want the death penalty for women who get abortions (sidenote: this article keeps saying "person" instead of "woman" for some reason):
Republican lawmakers in South Carolina are considering a change to the state’s criminal code that would make a person who gets an abortion eligible for the death penalty.
The bill being considered in South Carolina, dubbed the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023, would redefine “person” under state law to include a fertilized egg, giving it at the point of conception equal protection under the state’s homicide laws, including the death penalty.
The bill provides an exception for a pregnant person who underwent an abortion “because she was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or great bodily injury.” It also provides an exception if the procedure is needed to avert the death of a mother “when all reasonable alternatives to save the life of the unborn child were attempted or none were available.”
The bill does not provide an exception for rape or incest, a point that Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) took aim at on the House floor last week. Mace has blasted her party for its restrictive abortion policies.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3898383-south-carolina-gop-lawmakers-propose-death-penalty-for-women-who-have-abortions/ -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 06:56 AM)
That death penalty clause thing is absurd. It would never wash. Just fundie republicans looking to stir the pot for relevance, over something that is irrelevant for them.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
EURAZN — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 10:11 PM)
this is part of a well funded and coordinated effort by gop and activists to ban abortion everywhere. there is no federal right to abortion law and since scotus struck down roe vs wade last june, women living in red states can't use that case as precedent for abortion.
yesterday in some tiny texas town's federal courthouse, a extreme conservative judge-hand selected to hear this case by the plaintiffs- heard arguments about banning the abortion pill. plaintiffs claim the pill is unsafe to women or something like it never got full FDA testing and approval.
if there is a federal law empowering the FDA to make this abortion drug available, then the states by force of the supremecy clause in constitution can't preempt federal law. plus the raw constitution itself creates the post office and the states can't restrict access to a constitutionally created and granted right.
I suspect "person" is used because allegedly a man can get his body pregnant if he has sex change and therefore the GOP closes off any gender-sex identity loophole
what do
YOU
think about the articles you linked to?
where do you stand
on these important questions of individual rights and the threats posed to not only them but constitutionally given rights? -
/. — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 05:47 AM)
represented by … Jonathan Mitchell, who is credited as an architect of the six-week ban in Texas that took effect in September 2021
Coincidence?
Almost like, dunno, they're trying to set precedent.
My password is password -
Yermom_Is_God — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 06:36 AM)
I mean, not sure of the laws there but I understand his grief, his own baby was slaughtered. And that's the part nobody takes into consideration also. Sure "muh choice to slaughter muh baby," I get that, especially because the woman is the one who has to carry it to term, but seriously, that's a man's child also. Nobody ever considers the thoughts of the man when the baby is just slaughtered and killed. That's his child too.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 09:59 AM)
It is technically only a potential child. The rest is just male ego. I do believe the mother has the final say, regardless of the dynamic, because like you say she is the one that has to carry it to term. She may not have wanted a part of this man inside her. He sounds like a douchebag prick.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 10:20 PM)
It is technically only a potential child. The rest is just male ego. I do believe the mother has the final say, regardless of the dynamic, because like you say she is the one that has to carry it to term. She may not have wanted a part of this man inside her.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith