A doctor performed an abortion illegal in Texas, then moved his practice
to another state. He wrote an op ed about it.

A man in Illinois filed a test lawsuit against him. He said he wasn't
aware that he could seek damages but claims he wouldn't have kept them.

A San Antonio trial court wouldn't allow the lawsuit to proceed. The
case is being appealed.

Lawsuit against doctor who defied Texas abortion law tossed
AP
12/9/2022
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-texas-lawsuits-san-antonio-da6d7f83542a01f7ea10f0c77d08ca6a

In article <tn04ri$1a2l9$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> A doctor performed an abortion illegal in Texas, then moved his practice
> to another state. He wrote an op ed about it.
>
> A man in Illinois filed a test lawsuit against him. He said he wasn't
> aware that he could seek damages but claims he wouldn't have kept them.
>
> A San Antonio trial court wouldn't allow the lawsuit to proceed.

On what grounds? Doesn't the Texas law allow for this?

(FYI - I don't agree with laws allowing private citizens to act as
assistant attorneys general, but as far as I know they're legal.
California has a few laws that that provide for this kind "private
enforcement" against other people for 'progressive' things like defying
water restrictions.)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>A doctor performed an abortion illegal in Texas, then moved his practice
>>to another state. He wrote an op ed about it.

>>A man in Illinois filed a test lawsuit against him. He said he wasn't
>>aware that he could seek damages but claims he wouldn't have kept them.

>>A San Antonio trial court wouldn't allow the lawsuit to proceed.

>On what grounds?

The article made it sound like the judge offered no explanation.

Actually, I don't understand any of this. As this was intended to be a
test case, you'd think the trial would have created a huge trial record
so there's something for the appellate court to work with. As far as I
know, all the appellate court can do is order the case to trial because
I don't see how the law' constitutionality can be challenged with no
trial record.

>Doesn't the Texas law allow for this?

I don't even think you have to be in the same Earth in the D.C.
multiverse to have standing to be a plaintiff in the case.

>(FYI - I don't agree with laws allowing private citizens to act as
>assistant attorneys general, but as far as I know they're legal.
>California has a few laws that that provide for this kind "private
>enforcement" against other people for 'progressive' things like defying
>water restrictions.)

I had no idea. Interesting.

On Dec 9, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> A doctor performed an abortion illegal in Texas, then moved his practice
>>> to another state. He wrote an op ed about it.
>
>>> A man in Illinois filed a test lawsuit against him. He said he wasn't
>>> aware that he could seek damages but claims he wouldn't have kept them.
>
>>> A San Antonio trial court wouldn't allow the lawsuit to proceed.
>
>> On what grounds?
>
> The article made it sound like the judge offered no explanation.
>
> Actually, I don't understand any of this. As this was intended to be a
> test case, you'd think the trial would have created a huge trial record
> so there's something for the appellate court to work with. As far as I
> know, all the appellate court can do is order the case to trial because
> I don't see how the law' constitutionality can be challenged with no
> trial record.
>
>> Doesn't the Texas law allow for this?
>
> I don't even think you have to be in the same Earth in the D.C.
> multiverse to have standing to be a plaintiff in the case.
>
>> (FYI - I don't agree with laws allowing private citizens to act as
>> assistant attorneys general, but as far as I know they're legal.
>> California has a few laws that that provide for this kind "private
>> enforcement" against other people for 'progressive' things like defying
>> water restrictions.)
>
> I had no idea. Interesting.

Yes, when Newsom was braying about Texas's law and how awful it was that it
allows for people to become their own attorney general, I was like, bro, you
have no problem with it when it suits your agenda, so shut the fuck up.