Attorney General Ken Paxton has sent a civil investigative demand to Seattle Children's Hospital, demanding data on all Texas patients traveling for care, despite having no jurisdiction there.
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."
I once stood within 3 feet of Greg Abbott. Every single day of my life, I regret not punching him straight in the nose. It wouldn’t have changed anything, but he most certainly deserved it then, and double deserves it now.
We recently tried, and the whole thing played out like a corruption carnival. An astounding number of “liberals” in the Texas legislature suddenly switched sides on the biggest smoking gun issue they could have impeached him with (that he had illegally given information to Nate Paul to influence an investigation). Turn them upside down, and watch the money fall out of their pockets, I say.
For those who want to see what I’m talking about, look at how many democrats voted to acquit on article 4 as compared to every other article:
If you’re implying violence, I can nearly guarantee that it would make him a martyr for the cause. The religious right love to see their leaders on crosses down here.
The absolute best hope for Texas is for liberal candidates to unite around issues that moderate rural Texans can get behind. When democrats in the federal government get our candidates to do things like make strong anti-gun statements, it only ends up making it impossible to win here. We have to focus on getting power before we make strong statements about using power in ways that offend rural Texans.
I've heard that line of thinking my entire life as things have gotten worse and worse and fascism and Christian conservative bullshit has taken a stronger and more vicious grip, it's time for a violent revolution.
I think you’re not understanding that I’m only talking about Texas here. Violent revolution is all well and good if you can win. Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in this state.
If there were a lot more of us and we had it in the bag, sure, what the hell, let’s bring change now. But history is written by the victors, and no assassination looks justified when you lose. As it stands right now, progressives would lose a violent fight in Texas.