610

Excerpts:

"Seattle responded to the request by filing a lawsuit in Travis County, stating they cannot comply because Texas has no jurisdiction in Washington State, and no care was provided by the hospital in Texas. They also point out that the Dormant Commerce Clause, protected by the United States Constitution, “protects the right to interstate travel, including to obtain healthcare services.” By targeting out-of-state hospitals for enforcement of laws that only apply within the jurisdiction of Texas, they “discriminate against healthcare based on an interstate element,” violating constitutional protections, according to the legal filing. Lastly, Seattle Children’s Hospital cannot comply due to a shield law passed by Washington State. This law bars the hospital from providing any patient data and from responding to subpoenas pursuant to “protected healthcare services” obtained within the jurisdiction of Washington. Protected healthcare services include abortion, reproductive care, and gender-affirming care."

"This case promises to be extraordinarily complex. Seattle Children’s Hospital is challenging the jurisdiction of the demands directly in a Texas state court. Regardless of what the local court decides, the claims are likely to go to the Texas Supreme Court. Given that the claims also have a time limit on them and that appeals in Texas automatically favor the attorney general due to an automatic lifting of stays in the state, Seattle Children’s Hospital workers and providers for trans patients from Texas could be under legal jeopardy. Ultimately, the case presents questions of conflicting state laws and regulation of conduct across state lines, and the implications of those laws could be dire for abortion and trans care nationwide."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 138 points 6 months ago

This case promises to be extraordinarily complex.

It really shouldn't be complex at all. It should be extremely simple: Is Seattle within the jurisdiction of the Texas AG or not?

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 46 points 6 months ago

I guess the issue is that they have to convince a Texas court of that, instead of some kind of reasonable judge.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 79 points 6 months ago

Until it gets kicked up to federal court, at which point a judge will laugh Texas out of the courtroom. This is a huge waste of time that will achieve nothing.

[-] Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca 95 points 6 months ago

"This is a huge waste of time that will achieve nothing."

That's the GOPs entire platform.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Obfuscate, obstruct, oppress.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I hate how true this is

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 26 points 6 months ago

Texas is under the 5th circuit.

Judges there are often just as insane as their lower court brethren. Fully by design.

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

It's achieves political objectives for the Texas AG.

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And then it goes to the Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices have already been bought and paid for well in advance

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

I doubt the Supreme Court would go for this since it would also mean that the Washington AG could demand something from a Texas hospital. Or any state from any other state. It's because they're bought and paid for that they wouldn't do something that would jeopardize their own paymasters' positions like that.

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago

Yup. Liberal states are tired of this shit and will use the precedent

[-] PopMyCop@iusearchlinux.fyi 13 points 6 months ago

Bah. That's the one thing that always seems to never happen. 'Civilized' places always seem to take the high road and never hit back.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

They're crazy, but even they won't fuck with interstate commerce.

[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 13 points 6 months ago

The confederate states split from the union because they wanted the federal government to force free states to return escaped slaves, effectively enforcing the laws of one state on the residents of another. We are reenacting the events that led to the first Civil War.

[-] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

This is spot on. This hadn't even occurred to me.

[-] chocosoldier@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

the fact of trans people being involved has the effect of making anything complicated, apparently. It's just sooooo complicated to checks notes allow us the same rights and protections as anyone else. But oh hey someone's building a database of trans people while passing a bunch of anti-trans legislation? Hold on now it's complicated he may have a point.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And, of course, it's only trans people for now. If they can build a database of people getting gender-affirming care, they can build a database of people getting any other sort of medical care. For example, care for HIV or sickle cell anemia or Tay Sachs. And then there's the ability to make a database of women getting legal abortions, certain forms of birth control or IVF treatments. Awfully convenient way to keep track of 'problem' members of society, isn't it?

this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
610 points (97.7% liked)

News

21721 readers
3391 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS