So fascinating legal concept in a hot topic abortion wrapper. This should be fun for everybody involved and I expect the following discourse to be kind and constructive.

https://apple.news/AuaUjXy9HTNecHKT0g_1uig

So what do you do when people from another state are doing actions that lead to direct lawbreaking in your state and not only does the state condone it but actually protects them? Frankly, I think Texas will win this. Another state should not be able to break these rules. If so, we should start selling guns by the truckload to NYC, which is actually protecting a constitutional right.

Quote:

---

Ken Paxton sues New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to Texas woman
This case sets up a legal battle between Texas' near-total abortion ban and New York's shield law that protects doctors from out-of-state prosecution.

---

This is like folks in Cali crossing borders to buy guns but more temporary. Cali can prosecute person because they're still in possession of a Cali illegal firearm but they can't prosecute gun shop owner out of jurisdiction.

How does Texas reach across borders to prosecute what's legal there?

Bob Lee said:

---

I can't buy a bottle of whiskey from a distillery and have it delivered to my house in Texas because the distillery has to comply with TX's laws. This seems like that. I don't see how this "doctor" has a leg to stand on.

---

Good point!

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

NY doesn't have jurisdiction in Texas and can't stop a Texas prosecution. Texas can issue an arrest warrant, NY has to honor it because of full faith and credit clause.

---

NY has a shield law in place that prevents the state from cooperating with Texas. So this will likely come to the supreme Court. I'm guessing the doctor tells Paxton to pound sand. What's he going to do about it?

Likely nothing because he isn't going to be able to go and arrest the doctor unless she comes to Texas. Also likely nothing because that's his MO. File a lawsuit which looks good for the cameras and his base then do nothing to follow up on it.

ttu_85 said:

---

Texas Tribune-- what a joke. It reads as left or worse than the New York times. There are publications that pretend to be news when they are nothing but propaganda. I will not read 'em. The TT is one of them.

---

Archive links don't give them clicks:

https://archive.is/k4v3n

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

So fascinating legal concept in a hot topic abortion wrapper. This should be fun for everybody involved and I expect the following discourse to be kind and constructive.

https://apple.news/AuaUjXy9HTNecHKT0g_1uig

So what do you do when people from another state are doing actions that lead to direct lawbreaking in your state and not only does the state condone it but actually protects them? Frankly, I think Texas will win this. Another state should not be able to break these rules. If so, we should start selling guns by the truckload to NYC, which is actually protecting a constitutional right.

Quote:

---

Ken Paxton sues New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to Texas woman
This case sets up a legal battle between Texas' near-total abortion ban and New York's shield law that protects doctors from out-of-state prosecution.

---

---

TT is trash, move along

Suit is filed in a TX District Court. NY has a shield law against just such suits. If defendant ignores, and Paxton wins a summary judgement, then what?

Sues the State of NY in Federal Court over their shield law?

On what grounds?

Also, can/will the Collin County DA file criminal charges?

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

aggiejayrod said:

---

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

---

No as outlined in the filing.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

homebuildingag said:

---

This is like folks in Cali crossing borders to buy guns but more temporary. Cali can prosecute person because they're still in possession of a Cali illegal firearm but they can't prosecute gun shop owner out of jurisdiction.

How does Texas reach across borders to prosecute what's legal there?

---

Same way out of state retailers have to collect Texas sales tax on online transactions. You may be out of state, but you're doing business here. Doc may live in NY, but he's acting as a doctor in Texas when prescribing medication in Texas.

---

I made the fatal mistake of responding without reading fully!

You are correct. I made the assumption thinking women were traveling to New York and getting prescribed and returning home.

homebuildingag said:

---

This is like folks in Cali crossing borders to buy guns but more temporary. Cali can prosecute person because they're still in possession of a Cali illegal firearm but they can't prosecute gun shop owner out of jurisdiction.

---

Difference is Texas Abortion laws exempt the mother from prosecution/liability( and the providers/enablers are liable and can be prosecuted.

It seems Paxton is filing a civil case seeking injunctive relief in a state district court to get a favorable judgement as a foundation for a federal lawsuit?

BMX Bandit where are you?

Quote:

---

I can't buy a bottle of whiskey from a distillery and have it delivered to my house in Texas because the distillery has to comply with TX's laws. This seems like that. I don't see how this "doctor" has a leg to stand on.

---

I think that's because the distillery operates in the same state as the supplier. Texas companies have to honor Texas laws, not New York laws.

Quote:

---

Same thing with ordering weed from out of state

---

This was my first thought too, but weed is illegal federally and crossing state lines I believe is a federal jurisdiction.

I don't see how this can be upheld. Apparently you can sell guns to customers in New York. There are federal restrictions but I believe in New York, the only person who can really be prosecuted is the buyer, not the seller.

Same here, I think Texas would have to prosecute the person purchasing the pill and not the seller.

I'm pro life but seems like a dangerous precedent to start applying state law to everyone who sells a product to someone in that state, including how it gets there, and then thinking some state like California could pass radical laws and start hauling Texans into California state court?

Yeah the more I think about it the more this sounds like Paxton going after Cornyn's job by being able to say he's standing up for the unborn. I feel like this would open a huge can of worms for anyone doing business online and would hurt Texas way more than it helps, but I could be missing something.

Gator92 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

---

No as outlined in the filing.

---

I'm trying to lead her to see that practicing medicine without a license might be a bit illegal.

I can't practice law in states where I'm not licensed, doctors can't practice medicine. Even if she really enjoys murdering babies.

And to add to this, doing some research, sounds like alcohol is also very much regulated federally. For example, the three tier system (Producers, Distributors, Retailers) that came about as a result of the prohibition, apparently the 21st amendment and the Federal Alcohol Administration Act which gives states authority over distribution, and even the fact that UPS and FedEx require shipments to honor state laws they're shipping to makes this even more difficult.

I think the reality is, a lot of controversial things are heavily regulated so it's easier to restrict, but the overturn of Roe v Wade left a regulation void and don't think there's enough consensus to regulate this in Washington but who knows.

It's fascinating (to me at least) understanding the differences between the different types of products and how they're regulated state by state and who has jurisdiction, who's at fault, etc.

dustin999 said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't buy a bottle of whiskey from a distillery and have it delivered to my house in Texas because the distillery has to comply with TX's laws. This seems like that. I don't see how this "doctor" has a leg to stand on.

---

I think that's because the distillery operates in the same state as the supplier. Texas companies have to honor Texas laws, not New York laws.

Quote:

---

Same thing with ordering weed from out of state

---

This was my first thought too, but weed is illegal federally and crossing state lines I believe is a federal jurisdiction.

I don't see how this can be upheld. Apparently you can sell guns to customers in New York. There are federal restrictions but I believe in New York, the only person who can really be prosecuted is the buyer, not the seller.

Same here, I think Texas would have to prosecute the person purchasing the pill and not the seller.

I'm pro life but seems like a dangerous precedent to start applying state law to everyone who sells a product to someone in that state, including how it gets there, and then thinking some state like California could pass radical laws and start hauling Texans into California state court?

Yeah the more I think about it the more this sounds like Paxton going after Cornyn's job by being able to say he's standing up for the unborn. I feel like this would open a huge can of worms for anyone doing business online and would hurt Texas way more than it helps, but I could be missing something.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by supplier. Distilleries source their grain and oak barrels from out of state I imagine. Texas is on a 3 tier system. Distillery - Distributor - Retailer. If High West sells whiskey online, they will not send it to my house because of Texas state law. They're in Utah.

Uphold what?

Paxton's filing is in a State District Court. In Collin County. It alleges a unlicensed doctor prescribed, sold, and mailed mifepristone and misoprostol. Being unlicensed in TX, having no hospital admitting privileges, no in person exam, and no in person follow up visit all violate the Texas Health Code.

It seeks a civil penalty form the doctor for $250K and an injunction barring the doc from prescribing, selling and shipping mifepristone and misoprostol to TX.

Seems pretty much like a slam dunk in a State District Court...

aggiejayrod said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

---

No as outlined in the filing.

---

I'm trying to lead her to see that practicing medicine without a license might be a bit illegal.

I can't practice law in states where I'm not licensed, doctors can't practice medicine. Even if she really enjoys murdering babies.

---

The doctor has a license to practice in New York which is where she prescribed the medication from. Id guess it was then filled by a third party pharmacy and sent to Texas.

The post office is under no obligation to stop the mailing of those drugs, the FDA does not require in person dispensation, and the pills themselves often come from international providers (or in this case, a shield law state like NY).

A key fact in this case was the alleged harm to the mother that sought the abortion inducing medication.

Without proper/ sufficient oversight by the doctor, such might be deemed to have failed to meet certain standards regarding permissible telehealth appointments/ treatments, especially when the treating physician is not physically situated nor licensed to practice in the state where the patient resides, so this breach of care might open a back door challenge to NY's shield law. If successful, the doctor might then be exposed to a charge of criminal negligence that is bolstered by the physical harm resulting from the very act that violated Texas law. Furthermore, any criminal proceeding resulting therefrom could simultaneously subject the doctor to the civil jurisdiction of Texas too. Thus, the criminal proceeding might warrant the imposition of not only the injunction sought by Paxton so as to prevent future harm to others but also justify ciivil penalties (in lieu of sny criminal fines that might be statutorily available to criminally negligent prosecutions).

In summary, I believe the alleged harm is what Paxton needed to occur in order to challenge the NY shield law by arguing it is too broad & not sufficiently tailored to overcome the full faith & credit clause's mandatory enforcement of a foreign jurisdiction's laws. After all, this is the first challenge that I'm aware of that's been filed by Paxton, since surely there has been other pregnant women in Texas that have utilized this doctor's services without any repercussions sought by Paxton.

Notwithstanding any of the aforesaid, I agree with the sentiment that it's political grandstanding by Paxton; HOWEVER, as an attorney myself, I gotta tip my hat to that shifty-eyed dude's legal acumen & ability to generate novel legal challenges to issues/ laws/ situations that seemed ironclad upon first blush.

The filing only mentions the fact and alleges no harm from the defendant.

The filing seeks a civil judgement and an injunction.

Shield law "shields" defendant from other states judgement/injunction.

What is the remedy?

The NY shield law protects out-of-state physicians from criminal PROSECUTION, not civil; but, for the reasons stated, the NY shield could be pierced with criminal charges under factual circumstances that might make a challenge ripe (& thus present a genuine question of law & fact for an appellate review). Accordingly, if successful, such could simultaneously expose them to penalties/ injunctions in a civil proceeding too by the physician consenting to the state's jurisdiction. Or conversely, Paxton might achieve the same "penalty" available under a criminal prosecution that's available under a civil tort proceeding for negligent harm but is just worded differently (ie. restitution v. damages) & thereby forgo the NY shield altogether.

Gator92 said:

---

The filing only mentions the fact and alleges no harm from the defendant.

The filing seeks a civil judgement and an injunction.

Shield law "shields" defendant from other states judgement/injunction.

What is the remedy?

---

And what the hell do mean that no "harm" by the defendant was mentioned?!?! Paxton said Texas seeks to protect the unborn AND pregnant women, & because the NY physician administered an abortion drug via a telehealth appointment without first meeting Texas' license requirements for doctors, the pregnancy was terminated AND the mother suffered complications.

Your "harm" comment & lack of comprehension between 'criminal prosecution' and a 'civil proceeding' makes me think you should sit out this discussion.

The suit mentions the harm as fact, but does not allege wrongdoing under Texas law.

The suit seeks:

Request for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief from defendant to refrain from prescribing drugs w/o being licensed in TX.

Request for Civil Penalties for not being licensed under the TX Occupation Code and prescribing abortion inducing drugs in violation of the TX Health and Safety Code.

Request for Attorney's Fees and Other Costs per the TX Health and Safety Code and TX Government Code.

There is no request for penalty from the harm(bleeding).

Paxton is using the hospital visit as a foundation of proof of violating the Texas Health and Safety Code. The father of the child took the mother to the hospital w/o the knowledge she was pregnant. He became suspicious and found evidence of her use of abortion inducing drugs prescribed by the defendant.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Dr%20Carpenter%20Filed%20Petition.pdf

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

Quote:

---

Ken Paxton sues New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills medical marijuana to Texas woman

---

---

Would this be unconstitutional if Texas bans marijuana?

nai06 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

---

No as outlined in the filing.

---

I'm trying to lead her to see that practicing medicine without a license might be a bit illegal.

I can't practice law in states where I'm not licensed, doctors can't practice medicine. Even if she really enjoys murdering babies.

---

The doctor has a license to practice in New York which is where she prescribed the medication from. Id guess it was then filled by a third party pharmacy and sent to Texas.

The post office is under no obligation to stop the mailing of those drugs, the FDA does not require in person dispensation, and the pills themselves often come from international providers (or in this case, a shield law state like NY).

---

This isn't how telemedicine works in Texas.

Quote:

---

"Telemedicine" is defined in Texas law to be remote medical services
provided to a patient by a physician who is licensed in Texas.15 TMB further requires that in
order to provide telemedicine medical services to residents of Texas, a person must be licensed
to practice medicine in Texas.

---

From the Texas Medical Association.

nai06 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

---

No as outlined in the filing.

---

I'm trying to lead her to see that practicing medicine without a license might be a bit illegal.

I can't practice law in states where I'm not licensed, doctors can't practice medicine. Even if she really enjoys murdering babies.

---

The doctor has a license to practice in New York which is where she prescribed the medication from. Id guess it was then filled by a third party pharmacy and sent to Texas.

The post office is under no obligation to stop the mailing of those drugs, the FDA does not require in person dispensation, and the pills themselves often come from international providers (or in this case, a shield law state like NY).

---

The problem I see with this argument is that you're taking the position that if Michael Jackson's personal physician would have simply lived in New York and mailed those sleep drugs to Jackson, he'd be a free man right now.

I don't think it works that way.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Texas can issue an arrest warrant, NY has to honor it because of full faith and credit clause.

---

This is false.

As stated by others, this is not a criminal proceeding. But even if it was, full faith and credit does not require a state to honor or enforce criminal arrest warrants.

nai06 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Is she licensed to practice medicine in Texas?

---

No as outlined in the filing.

---

I'm trying to lead her to see that practicing medicine without a license might be a bit illegal.

I can't practice law in states where I'm not licensed, doctors can't practice medicine. Even if she really enjoys murdering babies.

---

The doctor has a license to practice in New York which is where she prescribed the medication from. Id guess it was then filled by a third party pharmacy and sent to Texas.

The post office is under no obligation to stop the mailing of those drugs, the FDA does not require in person dispensation, and the pills themselves often come from international providers (or in this case, a shield law state like NY).

---

Your arguments are not helping your defense of abortion. I don't know your exact feelings about abortion but the left's defense of it is quite suspect, and demonic, especially when the willing abortion docs harm the mother.