The woman was 19 weeks pregnant when she used Misoprostol to conduct an abortion. It was after that the following day that the developing fetus had no confirmed heartbeat where a caesarian section performed. The hospital would report the procedure to the district attorney office where they opened an investigation into the abortion.
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health the overturning of the Roe v. Wade. Texas lawmakers would enact abortions a few months later on August 25 of the same year. Although strict restrictions prohibit the dispensing or usage of abortion inducing methods (such as Misoprostol), women are protected from murder charges when conducting an abortion. Thus, women have found ways to conduct abortions through medications provided by non-profits or, in this case, self-induced abortions.
In the lawsuit, the woman would argue that she was wrongfully tried for a crime that she was legally exempted from, along with the argument of having her privacy rights violated with the hospital disclosing her procedure with the D.A office. The prosecutor who initially charged the woman agreed to a $1,250 fine along with a probation period of 12 months.
This particular case brings to highlights the many complicated legal rules that are involved in controversial topics like abortion. This connects to different concepts learned in class (particularly government), such as the idea of right to privacy. With the individuals guaranteed the right to privacy from government intervention, it is interesting to see how legal action was taken against the woman, although for an illegal action, a cause that could be viewed as improbable for some.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-woman-sues-prosecutors-charged-murder-after-managed-108667815
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/11/texas-abortion-law-birth-control-what-you-need-to-know/
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws#:~:text=A%20judgment%20in%20a%20Supreme,effect%20on%20August%2025%2C%202022.
14 comments:
This looks to be a benefit of the US' adversarial legal system over an inquisitional legal system. In an adversarial legal system, lawyers and prosecutors work in their own self interest to arrive at a verdict. In an inquisitional legal system, judges conduct investigations in order to arrive at the absolute truth.
Adversarial legal systems are better at ensuring the rights of defendants, which is clearly seen here. As the defendant is able to sue under because of her right to privacy being violated, her penalty gets minimized.
However, adversarial legal systems aren't always good, as "adversaries" of attorneys and prosecutors can be incompetent, or the whole truth can get easily disregarded in the sentencing.
Although the case excused the woman from murder charges, I wonder how the state of Texas proceeded with dealing a punishment on her for still following through with an abortion. I don’t really know much about the case or Texas law, but I would also like to find out how the organizations that hand out these treatments for self-induced abortions also deal and operate under the state. I don’t really have much else to say as for additional commentary on the subject, but I would love if Jorell or someone else can get back to me about my questions.
Aside from just the legal part of this, I definitely feel like there is an invasion of privacy. Physicians are bound by HIPAA which is essentially doctor patient confidentiality. Violations of HIPAA can include up to 10 years in prison. I doubt that the government would've known about a single individual secretly holding an abortion and get a search warrant (if doctors were even forced to hand over her medical records then) but whatever physician went out of their way to report this must have broken HIPAA to do so.
Here's an article with some updates to the case: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/30/us/texas-abortion-murder-charge-lawsuit.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.jE0.M9vl.0-yZpuoKNpug&smid=url-share
I think this case is really interesting because the abortion and indictment happened before Roe v Wade was overturned and Texas started passing laws to ban abortions, and even now Texas law says that women cannot be punished for their own abortions, so the prosecutor had absolutely no reason to convict her. It was the prosecutor, not her, who had to pay a $1,250 fine and be on probation for 12 months.
Most people strongly oppose punishment for women who seek abortions, so this case might help increase support for the pro-choice cause (and Democrats in the coming election).
I agree with chin-yi, and I feel like the hospital should not have reported the procedure. I am also curious as to what consequences there would be for women who use restricted abortion-inducing methods, such as Misoprostol. Since women are protected from murder charges when getting an abortion, doesn't that make these restrictions useless?
I agree with Chin-Yi in that this feels like a huge invasion of privacy. I also find the whole prospect of somebody who goes through an abortion being treated like a criminal completely insane. Furthermore, if what Alex says is true, and Texas law says that women cannot be punished for their own abortions, what was she even convicted for? She should be compensated for the emotional trauma.
After a read through of the blog post, I thought it was interesting how in Texas, a state known to be against abortions, excuses murder charges against abortions, however am curious as to whether the woman would be charged separately for taking the drug Misoprostol to have an abortion, as Jorell mentions that strict restrictions prohibit the dispensing or usage of abortion inducing methods. Though I am not fully aware of the process, I found it interesting/odd that the hospital decided to report the case to the DA office, where they immediately decided to open an investigation.
I definitely agree that the woman's rights were violated from the very beginning, starting with not allowing women to obtain abortions in professional clinicals and with safe procedures. I think that her suing Texas is a step to make states and people refelct on the fact that rights were taken away by overreturning Roe v. Wade. The 14th amendment implies a right to privacy which protects the right to obtain abortions, in this case. The fact that women have to be careful and discrete to get an abortion is just tragic because that should no longer be happening
I believe the woman has a valid reason for suing and I’m not sure how anyone could argue against it. HIPAA is meant to give patients privacy with medical information. It is illegal for doctors to share someone’s medical information without their consent. You also stated that the Texas law allows women to conduct abortions without getting charged for murder. I don’t understand why they even held her in jail for two days since it is clear her right to privacy was violated and she can’t be charged with murder. This case shows that Texas will have a difficult time enforcing their ban on abortions because of HIPAA and their current abortion laws.
I definitely agree that this case involved an invasion of privacy, and I'm glad that this woman sued. I had a similar query to Zen, why would the organization provide her with abortion pills knowing that she could be tried for her abortion? How would this work with the nonprofits? Wouldn't they be hesitant to go against the state of Texas by providing these self-induced abortions?
Additionally, I will say that it's quite disheartening to see the government turn against women like this. The decision to have an abortion isn't an easy one and to invade someone's right to privacy and charge them for their decision sets a pretty grim precedent for women in Texas.
This case is 100% a violation of this woman's privacy. HIPAA regulations, a doctor, and patient privacy guarantee bind those who work in hospitals. Thus, the hospital had no right to report this woman's procedure to the district attorney's office. Moreover, I think what Alex said was really interesting. Why did the prosecutor convict the woman before Roe v. Wade had been overturned? Therefore, I feel the punishment the prosecutor had to face was reasonable as an innocent woman had to endure two days in prison and trials. This case highlights the need for greater awareness and advocacy to prevent others who have faced/are facing similar injustices in the future.
i think that this is a reminder of the entrenched legal and ethical complexities surrounding the abortion rights int he united states. the case in the woman in McAllen, Texas, is int he spotlight because of the individual and the government oversighting the matters of the womens reproductivity health. the facts that she was initially charged with murder for a self induced abortion is not just legal but also morally troubling highlighting the intrusive reach of the state into her personal decisions. The lawsuit is violating the privacy rights and the fundamental importance of the protecting of individuals dignity in matters of productive choices. there is an ongoing battle for womens reproductive rights.
The woman's argument regarding the violation of her privacy rights brings into focus the legal principle of patient confidentiality. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects patient privacy, and hospitals are typically prohibited from disclosing patient information without consent. This case raises questions about how these protections are applied. With stricter abortion laws in place, many women turn to non-profits and online resources to access abortion-inducing medications. This case exemplifies the increasing reliance on such methods and the potential legal risks involved. It's crucial for women seeking these options to understand the legal landscape and for advocacy groups to provide accurate information about safe and legal practices.
It appears Misoprostol is a medication that one takes to prevent stomach ulcers caused by anti inflammatories, it can also be used in combination with another medication, mifepristone, to expel a pregnancy. According to the article, self-induced abortions are protected, but they certainly aren’t always safe. It’s upsetting to view the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, as women feel so trapped by anti-abortion laws, they take action into their own hands, like this woman who eventually needed a c-section. The government should just support its citizens' reasonable freedoms and choices, instead forcing them into emotional and physical turmoil, and they struggle to preserve their rights on their own. Not only should the right to privacy include a woman's right to her body, but childbirth is such a life changing event it therefore should only be decided by the person it affects, not the government. Not to mention, it's terrible that women are forced to carry the child, with no responsibility or thought toward the man’s involvement at all.
Post a Comment