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.
4 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).
Post a Comment