As expected, civil lawsuits have been filed against the Texas doctor Dr. Alan Braid who publicly announced that he had violated the new state law that placed such restrictions on abortions that it effectively banned the practice entirely. The law had apparently not specified that one had to be a resident of Texas to file the case and the two lawsuits (so far) have been brought by one person in Arkansas and one person in Illinois. The latter says he is actually pro-choice and his lawsuit was being pursued with the intention of showing that the law is unconstitutional.
After a Texas doctor shared over the weekend why he violated the state’s six-week abortion ban, a disbarred lawyer in Arkansas and an Illinois man on Monday filed lawsuits against him, highlighting the bizarre enforcement mechanism that allowed the law to go into effect earlier this month.
…Oscar Stilley, who is currently serving a 15-year federal sentence for tax evasion and conspiracy from home confinement, asked for $100,000 in his complaint filed in the district court of Bexar County, Texas.
…In another lawsuit against Braid that was filed Monday, Illinois-based lawyer Felipe N. Gomez identified himself as a “Pro-Choice Plaintiff.” In the lawsuit, which was first reported by KSAT, he asked that SB 8 be ruled unconstitutional because it violates Roe v. Wade.
BuzzFeed News has reached out to Gomez for comment.
But Stilley’s and Gomez’s cases reveal how broadly the state law can be applied and how virtually anyone can pursue legal steps against abortion providers should they suspect that SB 8 was violated.
…Stilley said in the complaint he called Braid on Monday morning and asked if he “might repent of his ideology,” but the doctor did not return the call. The Arkansas man has now requested an injunction prohibiting Braid from performing any abortions in violation of the state law in addition to being paid at least $100,000. Gomez did not seek any financial reward in his respective suit.
In a different interview, Stilley admitted that he was not personally opposed to abortion but that he could use the $10,000 bounty.
Oscar Stilley, a former lawyer convicted of tax fraud in 2010 and serving a 15-year sentence on home confinement, told the paper that, though he is not personally opposed to abortion, he thinks the measure should be subject to judicial review.
“If the law is no good, why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it’s garbage?” Stilley told the Post after filing the complaint in state court in Bexar County, where San Antonio is located.
The new law skirts judicial scrutiny by letting people file civil lawsuits against abortion practitioners and anyone who “aids” in an illegal abortion. Plaintiffs who win in court can receive bounties of at least $10,000, and Stilley admits he wouldn’t mind the cash.
I am curious as to how Stilley can justify the figure of $100,000 he seeks. Since he is not opposed to abortion, ‘pain and suffering’ cannot be a reason.
I am expecting more lawsuits to be filed against Braid. It would be interesting to see if other pro-choice people also file suits without seeking any damages, as I predicted might happen, and am curious to see how it is decided which suits should go forward and in which jurisdiction.
This whole thing is going to become a big legal circus. If the issue did not have such serious consequences for women, we could laugh at Texas once again becoming a laughing stock, taking the lead in the long-running competition with Florida to see which state can come up with the most extreme policies.
Seeing as how he is currently serving a 15-year federal sentence for tax evasion and conspiracy from home confinement, I’d say he was a grifter. There’s also the point that he claims to have called the doctor to ask him to “repent of his ideology”, which would seem to give the lie to the claim that he is not opposed to abortion.
A law designed by grifters and used by grifters…
Is there anything preventing someone from suing and then settling for no damages? Can the woman who had the abortion sue? How many entities can be sued for the same procedure? Was any thought put into this farce of a law?
@1Holms
There’s also the point that he claims to have called the doctor to ask him to “repent of his ideology”, which would seem to give the lie to the claim that he is not opposed to abortion.
Irony. I am still laughing. This guy is good.
@Aoife_b The Texas legislature seems to have considered and precluded that possibility. Texas statutes Sec. 171.208(c) states, “Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.”
If a defendant cannot demonstrate he or she previously paid the $10,000 statutory damages in a previous action (i.e., one that was settled for no damages), then a subsequent plaintiff could sue and recover the $10,000 for the same abortion.
But couldn’t an abortion rights supporter sue, collect the $10,000, then turn around and give it back to the doctor, thus fulfilling the letter of the law?
brucegee1962 @#6,
There are so many options for undermining this law, like the one you suggest, that I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg with these two lawsuits.
brucegee1962 @#6 Yes, I’m sure that is possible. However, in such cases the “friendly” plaintiff takes on significant risk. Once a suit is filed, I expect the right will have watchdogs digging into the background of each party to determine whether the plaintiff actually supports abortion rights or is sympathetic to the defendant. Depending on how this law gets interpreted and applied, it may expose “friendly” plaintiffs to their own civil liability: “Any person . . . may bring a civil action against any person who knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion . . . if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.” Additionally, the plaintiff could suffer criminal liability for perjury under Chapter 37 of the Texas Penal Code.
On the other side, the defendant is not just risking statutory damages. If the plaintiff prevails, the court must award “injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this subchapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this subchapter.” This could end up being more problematic than the $10,000. Defendants could be risking their licenses and livelihood. Some may be willing to do this, but it certainly does not make it easier for women to get access to safe abortions.
About that $100,000.
The statute is so broad, anyone assisting, that the other nine are ‘unnamed co-conspirators’ and ‘to be named at a later date’.
As I understand it they could potentially go after the people who built the overpass that allowed the car to get to the clinic. Will they go after the Texas authority that provides electricity to said clinic?
I’m sure there are nine nurses, the janitor, and any escorts. Certainly enough to plump up the claim.
There doesn’t seem to be any bright line.
And what if there are multiple claims on one event? This has already come to pass. Will they be checking which was first, or is this a question of qualifications? Will loyalty to a church or Dear Leader give me a leg up?