Gator92 said:

---

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?

?

---

I think you are on right track.

Different paths to get there, but I think most likely is:

NY doctor ignores the case, Texas get default judgment. Texas tries to enforce the judgment in New York, doctor asserts shield law and files a case in federal court in New York.

" the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy"

Nevada v Hall

Gator92 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.

---

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?

---

Does the US postal service also fall within the category of provider/enabler. Is the pharmacy providing the medicine in New York or Texas? Seems it would be illegal for a Texas pharmacy to dispense this medicine or even accept a prescription from an out of state MD for a banned medicine. A ton of issues this will uncover.

Just want to say thanks for everybody staying on topic and having a really good discourse. It really is an interesting legal case.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

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?

?

---

I think you are on right track.

Different paths to get there, but I think most likely is:

NY doctor ignores the case, Texas get default judgment. Texas tries to enforce the judgment in New York, doctor asserts shield law and files a case in federal court in New York.

" the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy"

Nevada v Hall

---

Paxton's filing mentions Abbot v Perez. A USSC decision in 2018 over TX congressional redistricting before the 2012 election.

"The State suffers irreparable injury when it is precluded from enforcing its own laws".

Also Maryland v King that has to do w/ DNA cheek swabs

"[T]he inability to enforce its duly enacted plans clearly inflicts irreparable harm on the State."

Are these full faith and credit arguments?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

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?

?

---

I think you are on right track.

Different paths to get there, but I think most likely is:

NY doctor ignores the case, Texas get default judgment. Texas tries to enforce the judgment in New York, doctor asserts shield law and files a case in federal court in New York.

" the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy"

Nevada v Hall

---

Just reading about that case, I think that was about whether you could sue a state in a different state's courts. Not sure it matters here where Paxton is suing an abortion provider, and not the state of New York for violating Texas' law.

Why do you suppose PornHub for example believes it has to abide by Texas' law requiring an age verification?

The NY law itself might be an attempt to flout other states' abortion laws. But it doesn't require that you provide abortions to residents of states where the practice is illegal, so she can't claim she risks violating NY state law by complying with NY state law.

Quote:

---

Just reading about that case, I think that was about whether you could sue a state in a different state's courts.

---

thats not all its about. it was also about the extent of the full faith and credit clause.

Quote:

---

Not sure it matters here where Paxton is suing an abortion provider, and not the state of New York for violating Texas' law.

---

It matters because Paxton is going to have to go to new york to enforce his judgment unless the doctor has property in texas he plans to seize.

there is no question Paxton can bring this suit, and no question the Collin County court has jurisdiction to hear it in my opinion. The issue is what happens after Paxton gets a judgment. Can you go to New York and seize her assets? NY law says no. thats where federal court will come in.

Quote:

---

Why do you suppose PornHub for example believes it has to abide by Texas' law requiring an age verification?

---

because it doesn't want to get fined for violating the law. has nothing to do with this case.

Quote:

---

The NY law itself might be an attempt to flout other states' abortion laws. But it doesn't require that you provide abortions to residents of states where the practice is illegal, so she can't claim she risks violating NY state law by complying with NY state law

---

.i don't think anyone has argued this, so not sure what you are getting at.

Quote:

---

The NY shield law protects out-of-state physicians from criminal PROSECUTION, not civi

---

"For both reproductive and gender-affirming health care, New York's shield laws provide protections

against out-of-state investigations and prosecutions, professional discipline, and civil liability."

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/New-York-Shield-Law-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Maybe u should sit this one out...

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Just reading about that case, I think that was about whether you could sue a state in a different state's courts.

---

thats not all its about. it was also about the extent of the full faith and credit clause.

Quote:

---

Not sure it matters here where Paxton is suing an abortion provider, and not the state of New York for violating Texas' law.

---

It matters because Paxton is going to have to go to new york to enforce his judgment unless the doctor has property in texas he plans to seize.

there is no question Paxton can bring this suit, and no question the Collin County court has jurisdiction to hear it in my opinion. The issue is what happens after Paxton gets a judgment. Can you go to New York and seize her assets? NY law says no. thats where federal court will come in.

Quote:

---

Why do you suppose PornHub for example believes it has to abide by Texas' law requiring an age verification?

---

because it doesn't want to get fined for violating the law. has nothing to do with this case.

Quote:

---

The NY law itself might be an attempt to flout other states' abortion laws. But it doesn't require that you provide abortions to residents of states where the practice is illegal, so she can't claim she risks violating NY state law by complying with NY state law

---

.i don't think anyone has argued this, so not sure what you are getting at.

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

I guess the way I'm thinking about this, it doesn't require NY state's involvement to fine the abortionist. Seems like Texas could fine another state's resident for violating its laws.

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

NVM

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

---

Actually they didn't comply and I edited my post.

What they did do is take their site offline in TX.

VPN use in TX skyrocketed after that.

ETA Paxton threatened too fine them, but didn't.

Gator92 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

---

Actually they didn't comply and I edited my post.

What they did do is take their site offline in TX.

VPN use in TX skyrocketed after that.

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

Quote:

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

---

It wasn't ever adjudicated in any way.

The difference as I see it is that the doc violated TX Health and Safety Code and a civil lawsuit was filed in a State District Court in hopes that the doc ignores the judgement.

Until that happens, Paxton has no standing to sue NY...

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

---

Actually they didn't comply and I edited my post.

What they did do is take their site offline in TX.

VPN use in TX skyrocketed after that.

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

---

I doubt pornhub gives a **** if the state of Texas fined them in part because they are owned and headquartered in Montreal Canada.

They blocked the Texas from access because it was a way to put pressure on users to push back on a law that they felt was unreasonable and one that would cost them significantly to comply with.

nai06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

---

Actually they didn't comply and I edited my post.

What they did do is take their site offline in TX.

VPN use in TX skyrocketed after that.

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

---

I doubt pornhub gives a **** if the state of Texas fined them in part because they are owned and headquartered in Montreal Canada.

They blocked the Texas from access because it was a way to put pressure on users to push back on a law that they felt was unreasonable and one that would cost them significantly to comply with.

---

I can't reconcile these two statements. If they didn't think the law had any teeth, why would they need consumers of pron to push back on the law?

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

---

It wasn't ever adjudicated in any way.

The difference as I see it is that the doc violated TX Health and Safety Code and a civil lawsuit was filed in a State District Court in hopes that the doc ignores the judgement.

Until that happens, Paxton has no standing to sue NY...

---

What I'm trying to get at is, it seems like if this all plays out in the abortionist (and NY's) favor, it seems like then PH could put their site back up in TX with impunity using the same logic.

I think nai06 has your answer.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Gator92 said:

---

I think nai06 has your answer.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

---

Makes no sense. They're clearly tacitly agree Texas has some recourse if they don't comply (or exit the state).

1. They don't care because they're in Canada, and TX doesn't have the ability to fine a Canadian company.
2. They do care and they want Texas consumers of pron to light a fire under the Texas legislature's butt to reverse course. Because it would be expensive for them to comply.

How do I reconcile these two things?

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

I think nai06 has your answer.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

---

Makes no sense. They're clearly tacitly agree Texas has some recourse if they don't comply (or exit the state).

1. They don't care because they're in Canada, and TX doesn't have the ability to fine a Canadian company.
2. They do care and they want Texas consumers of pron to light a fire under the Texas legislature's butt to reverse course. Because it would be expensive for them to comply.

How do I reconcile these two things?

---

Both can be true.

Except expense for them to comply.

They're not losing any money over age verification in TX, except from people who don't know what a VPN is...

Bob Lee said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

---

Actually they didn't comply and I edited my post.

What they did do is take their site offline in TX.

VPN use in TX skyrocketed after that.

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

---

I doubt pornhub gives a **** if the state of Texas fined them in part because they are owned and headquartered in Montreal Canada.

They blocked the Texas from access because it was a way to put pressure on users to push back on a law that they felt was unreasonable and one that would cost them significantly to comply with.

---

I can't reconcile these two statements. If they didn't think the law had any teeth, why would they need consumers of pron to push back on the law?

---

Because it impact their bottom line. The law impacts traffic to their site which is a detriment to their business model. The goal of the law is less about protecting children and more about legislating morality and striking a financial blow to the industry.

By shutting off access to Texas, the will definitely lose customers/visitors. But this is bigger than one state. They are seeking to make this an issue now so that it doesn't spread to other states.

nai06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

On the last part, I guess I'm mistaken, but the quote you gave from Nevada vs. Hall I thought was where you were going with that. I'm not trying to speak authoritatively. I don't know case law more than any regular guy. Can you help make sense of the difference between the PornHub example, and the physician? That seems comparable to me.

---

PornHub complied by requiring age verification...

---

So you're saying that's the only difference. Ostensibly if PornHub hadn't complied, the legal calculus would be the same?

---

Actually they didn't comply and I edited my post.

What they did do is take their site offline in TX.

VPN use in TX skyrocketed after that.

---

Well true, but they still judged that Texas would be within their rights to fine them for violating the state law, right? They wouldn't have exited the state if Texas didn't require the age verification.

---

I doubt pornhub gives a **** if the state of Texas fined them in part because they are owned and headquartered in Montreal Canada.

They blocked the Texas from access because it was a way to put pressure on users to push back on a law that they felt was unreasonable and one that would cost them significantly to comply with.

---

I can't reconcile these two statements. If they didn't think the law had any teeth, why would they need consumers of pron to push back on the law?

---

Because it impact their bottom line. The law impacts traffic to their site which is a detriment to their business model. The goal of the law is less about protecting children and more about legislating morality and striking a financial blow to the industry.

By shutting off access to Texas, the will definitely lose customers/visitors. But this is bigger than one state. They are seeking to make this an issue now so that it doesn't spread to other states.

---

I only mentioned it as an analogue.

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

---

Both could be "fined". That's not the question.

The question is what does state of New York have to do when Texas tries to enforce it in New York, where a sheild law exists.

Quote:

---

What I'm trying to get at is, it seems like if this all plays out in the abortionist (and NY's) favor, it seems like then PH could put their site back up in TX with impunity using the same logic.

---

There is no online porn shield law in New York or any state I know of. The situations are not remotely comparable

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can PornHub be fined, but not a physician for violating the state's laws?

---

Both could be "fined". That's not the question.

The question is what does state of New York have to do when Texas tries to enforce it in New York, where a sheild law exists.

Quote:

---

What I'm trying to get at is, it seems like if this all plays out in the abortionist (and NY's) favor, it seems like then PH could put their site back up in TX with impunity using the same logic.

---

There is no online porn shield law in New York or any state I know of. The situations are not remotely comparable

---

That's true. Do you know if there are examples of the supreme court ruling on the ability of a state to pass laws designed to frustrate other states enforcing their laws? Or is this completely novel?

This seems cut and dry to me. Either Texas has a right to make abortion illegal in Texas, or it doesn't. The drugs given to this young lady accounted for most abortions even under Roe v. Wade. The practical effect of NYs law then (assuming you're right that we need NY as an enforcement mechanism), is that states actually can't affect the practice of abortion within them. Even if a doctor sneaks in to TX to perform an abortion and returns to their home state, if that state passes some kind of sanctuary law forbidding the prosecution of anyone for performing any abortion, I think you'd have to say that would be fine.

Quote:

---

This seems cut and dry to me. Either Texas has a right to make abortion illegal in Texas, or it doesn't. The drugs given to this young lady accounted for most abortions even under Roe v. Wade. The practical effect of NYs law then (assuming you're right that we need NY as an enforcement mechanism), is that states actually can't affect the practice of abortion within them. Even if a doctor sneaks in to TX to perform an abortion and returns to their home state, if that state passes some kind of sanctuary law forbidding the prosecution of anyone for performing any abortion, I think you'd have to say that would be fine.

---

It's not remotely cut & dry.

Texas can make abortion illegal with its current law. That's not the issue.

You are completely missing what the issue is here. Again, it's the enforcement of a Texas civil judgment by the state of New York.

New York is free to pass a law forbidding the prosecution under criminal law for someone providing an abortion. But Texas is not bound by that and constitution would require extradition.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

If a doctor sneaks into Texas and performed an abortion, that person can be arrested in Texas. If the doctor made it back to New York, the constitution requires the doctor be extradited to Texas.

I refuse to even read that rag because it's run by/staffed by a bunch of marxists. The CEO is a google/obama staffer/goldman Sachs type who was even Buttigieg's campaign manager. Very fake news.

Even though TT is a liberal rag, this case is going to be a big one and merits discussion.

Can NY shield a NY person from violating the law in another state? Can NY shield them from civil prosecution?

Turn it around and say a Texas gun supplier ships a gun to NY and it's used in a crime. Can Texas have a law shielding the gun seller from criminal and civil prosecution? I would suggest yes Texas can since the seller did not commit the crime.

And in a similar way, the NY doctor did not commit the "crime" when an abortion pill is mailed to them.

There's likely an interstate commerce question to be resolved here too I believe.

I suspect Texas has the technical ability, without NY's assistance, to sieze financial assets of the doctor if it comes down to enforcing judgement. How does CA enforce tax collection on non-residents who may have earned a few bucks in CA?

Better question. How was NY able to continue taxing Rush Limbaugh for years after he moved to FL?

Because there isn't a shield law in place to stop the state of California from collecting the taxes.

The easiest answer would be for Texas to sue NY it would seem to me. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in suits between states.

Quote:

---

I suspect Texas has the technical ability, without NY's assistance, to sieze financial assets of the doctor if it comes down to enforcing judgement.

---

Texas needs to go to the court of any state in which it to enforce a judgment to get a court order from that state.

nortex97 said:

---

The easiest answer would be for Texas to sue NY it would seem to me. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in suits between states.

---

That's likely where this ends up, but not ripe yet.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

This seems cut and dry to me. Either Texas has a right to make abortion illegal in Texas, or it doesn't. The drugs given to this young lady accounted for most abortions even under Roe v. Wade. The practical effect of NYs law then (assuming you're right that we need NY as an enforcement mechanism), is that states actually can't affect the practice of abortion within them. Even if a doctor sneaks in to TX to perform an abortion and returns to their home state, if that state passes some kind of sanctuary law forbidding the prosecution of anyone for performing any abortion, I think you'd have to say that would be fine.

---

It's not remotely cut & dry.

Texas can make abortion illegal with its current law. That's not the issue.

You are completely missing what the issue is here. Again, it's the enforcement of a Texas civil judgment by the state of New York.

New York is free to pass a law forbidding the prosecution under criminal law for someone providing an abortion. But Texas is not bound by that and constitution would require extradition.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

If a doctor sneaks into Texas and performed an abortion, that person can be arrested in Texas. If the doctor made it back to New York, the constitution requires the doctor be extradited to Texas.

---

I haven't missed the issue. I understand. Respectfully, I think you're missing the issue. The way I would frame this question is, does NY state have the right to pass a law making abortion legal in Texas, even if in contravention of Texas' own law? Because that's its effect and its intention.

Eta: I gave a hypothetical where the state the person fled to has a law that says you're protected from prosecution. The fact that a law like that wouldn't be permitted is the point.

This is probably more complicated than you're thinking. To me the major question is whether or not you can establish a patient physician relationship across state lines without an in person visit.

Currently if I see you in my office for a problem but you fly to Florida on vacation I can call a pharmacy in Florida and prescribe medication. Even without a medical license in Florida because I am prescribing from my home state or licensed state; we have allowed this practice to continue and it is generally accepted.

If Texas wins this case at a national level you can potentially say goodbye to things like online prescribing of Viagra and other medication's including hair loss medication's as well.

Even with a narrow ruling people may stop prescribing across state lines due to fear. I don't know every states medical laws nor am I going to learn every states medical laws.

The_Thinker said:

---

This is probably more complicated than you're thinking. To me the major question is whether or not you can establish a patient physician relationship across state lines without an in person visit.

Currently if I see you in my office for a problem but you fly to Florida on vacation I can call a pharmacy in Florida and prescribe medication. Even without a medical license in Florida because I am prescribing from my home state or licensed state; we have allowed this practice to continue and it is generally accepted.

If Texas wins this case at a national level you can potentially say goodbye to things like online prescribing of Viagra and other medication's including hair loss medication's as well.

Even with a narrow ruling people may stop prescribing across state lines due to fear. I don't know every states medical laws nor am I going to learn every states medical laws.

---

But they're sending these drugs through the mail. She didn't pick them up at a Texas pharmacy. If the abortionist tried to send a prescription for abortion drugs to a pharmacy in TX for pickup, the girl wouldn't have been able to get them that way.

Quote:

---

I haven't missed the issue. I understand. Respectfully, I think you're missing the issue. The way I would frame this question is, does NY state have the right to pass a law making abortion legal in Texas, even if in contravention of Texas' own law? Because that's its effect and its intention.

Eta: I gave a hypothetical where the state the person fled to has a law that says you're protected from prosecution. The fact that a law like that wouldn't be permitted is the point.

---

respectfully, you are showing with each post you don't get it at all.

a person is not protected from prosecution. the constitution requires extradition.

NY can pass a law saying abortion is legal in Texas all it wants. it has no force and effect in Texas.

the issue is what New York is required to do regarding a civil case in Texas. it has nothing to do with criminal prosecution or New York legalizing abortion in Texas.