By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A New York judge has dismissed a legal challenge from Texas attempting to enforce a civil judgment against a doctor who prescribed abortion pills via telemedicine. The Texas Attorney General sought to enforce the judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, but the Ulster County Clerk refused, citing New York’s shield law protecting providers from out-of-state actions. Justice David Gandin ruled in favor of the clerk, stating the medical services were legal in New York and protected under the shield law. This ruling serves as a precedent for the state’s shield law, and the Texas Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether the case will be appealed.
Read the original article here
New York Judge dismisses legal challenge from Texas in early test of abortion shield law, and this is where we start. It’s really something to see how a legal battle unfolds, especially when it involves state laws clashing head-on. In this case, we have a New York judge making a bold move, dismissing a challenge brought by Texas regarding New York’s abortion shield law. This is essentially a legal protection for those who provide or receive abortion services, shielding them from the reach of other states’ laws that might criminalize such actions.
This legal tussle began with a specific situation: a county clerk in New York, Taylor Bruck, refusing to comply with a judgment. He was, as he put it, a government employee obligated to adhere to New York’s shield law. His reasoning was clear: he didn’t believe he should have to follow another state’s laws, especially when New York had its own protections in place. He felt that since the shield law was relatively new, it was his duty to help establish its precedent. It’s definitely the kind of “make me” attitude you’d expect from a New Yorker, someone not shy about standing their ground.
The core of the issue boils down to a fundamental disagreement about states’ rights and constitutional requirements. The argument from those opposing such shield laws is that they violate the constitutional mandate to respect the laws and legal judgments of other states. The counter-argument, and the one being put to the test here, is that New York is protecting its own citizens and healthcare providers from the overreach of another state’s laws. It’s a question of whether one state can enforce its laws on another, especially when those laws conflict.
Now, imagine Texas passing a law that makes something illegal and then attempting to apply it to a New Yorker. It’s interesting how some might frame that as “respecting the laws of other states.” Then, when New York has a law that makes that same thing legal, they’re somehow expected to abide by another state’s law? It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn’t it? The New York response to all this is basically, “Yeah, screw that noise!”
The potential implications of this ruling are massive. If this decision stands and other shield laws in various states are tested, it could reshape how states interact with each other in this kind of legal realm. It could also give the impression of a legal black eye for Texas. This situation, in a sense, is like a game of legal chess, with each side maneuvering to protect its position.
One potential solution is implementing significant civil penalties for anyone attempting to harass healthcare providers in New York over abortion services. This would establish a strict civil liability framework, deterring actions that violate the state’s shield law. A more serious concern is the possibility of states targeting the bank accounts of people who use any company that has a Texas branch. This could lead doctors to create lists of states and institutions they’re restricted from entering or doing business with.
It’s tempting to see this as New York’s way of saying “go fuck yourself” to Texas. The judge’s decision sets a precedent, and the Supreme Court’s involvement is what many are watching for. Then, the whole situation could become even more explosive if states decided to defy the federal government over their laws. It’s hard to predict where things will go from here.
Some are even suggesting that if state sovereignty is threatened, there might be no reason to run away from that risk anymore. The federal government’s actions could lead to chaos and a possible civil war. And if the Feds overreach, with the state saying “Make me,” and then the Supreme Court gets involved, and the state says, “Make me,” then the Supreme Leader orders martial law, and the soldiers themselves say, “Make me” that is when the government crumbles.
The reality of the situation is that those with the power to make these decisions might not risk their personal safety or money for someone else’s ego. And there are already rumors of soldiers refusing orders if they had to fight their own families. This whole situation is setting the stage for more conflict, so people have to be ready for the road ahead.
Furthermore, we’re seeing the potential for the Supreme Court to rule on issues like gun ownership for marijuana users. The current climate seems to be leaning towards disarming those on the left. Fascism’s core tenet is that the law protects only the party and its allies. If a red state ignores a liberal ruling, it’s a matter of “states’ rights.” But if a blue state ignores a fascist ruling, that’s “insurrection.” This is a battle that will shape the future for everyone.