Ken Paxton - The Idiot AG of Texas

gwb-trading said:
So a woman in Texas got a court order allowing her to get an abortion because complications in the pregnancy are almost certainly going cause her harm and it is a certainty that the fetus will not survive. Ken Paxton immediately responds threatening to prosecute any doctor who provides the needed medical service. This is GOP's war on women -- not much different than living in an extremist Muslim country.

Texas AG threatens to prosecute doctors in emergency abortion
https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas...rgency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday threatened to prosecute any doctors involved in providing an emergency abortion to a woman, hours after she won a court order allowing her to obtain one for medical necessity.

Paxton said in a letter that the order by District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin did not shield doctors from prosecution under all of Texas's abortion laws, and that the woman, Kate Cox, had not shown she qualified for the medical exception to the state's abortion ban.

Paxton said in a statement accompanying the letter that Guerra Gamble's order "will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas' abortion laws."

The letter was sent to three hospitals where Damla Karsan, the doctor who said she would provide the abortion to Cox, has admitting privileges.

"Fearmongering has been Ken Paxton's main tactic in enforcing these abortion bans," Marc Hearron, senior counsel at Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox, said in a statement. "He is trying to bulldoze the legal system to make sure Kate and pregnant women like her continue to suffer."

Cox, 31, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking a temporary restraining order preventing Texas from enforcing its near-total ban on abortion in her case, saying her continued pregnancy threatened her health and future fertility. Guerra Gamble said she was granting the order at a hearing Thursday morning.

Cox's lawyers have said her lawsuit is the first such case since the U.S. Supreme Court last year allowed states to ban abortion.

Cox's fetus was diagnosed on Nov. 27 with trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that usually results in miscarriage, stillbirth or death soon after birth.

Cox, who is about 20 weeks pregnant, said in her lawsuit that she would need to undergo her third Caesarian section if she continues the pregnancy. That could jeopardize her ability to have more children, which she said she and her husband wanted.

"The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice," said Guerra Gamble in Austin, Texas, state court, at Thursday's hearing.


The judge's ruling applies only to Cox, and does not expand abortion access more broadly.

Cox's lawyer, Molly Duane of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told reporters on a call after the hearing that Guerra Gamble's order allowed Cox to obtain the abortion. She declined to provide any details about Cox's immediate plans, citing concerns for her and her doctors' safety.

"I want to emphasize how unforgivable it is that Kate had to beg for healthcare in court," Duane said. "No one should have to do this and the reality is 99 percent of people cannot."

The state's abortion ban includes only a narrow exception to save the mother's life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function. Cox said in her lawsuit that, although her doctors believed abortion was medically necessary for her, they were unwilling to perform one without a court order in the face of potential penalties including life in prison and loss of their licenses.

Johnathan Stone, a lawyer for the state, had said at Thursday's hearing that Cox had not shown she qualified for the exception. He said showing that would require a more through hearing on evidence, rather than a temporary restraining order.

Cox's husband, Justin Cox, and Dr. Karsan are also plaintiffs in the case.

Karsan is also one of 22 plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit seeking a broader order protecting Texas women's right to abortions their doctors deem medically necessary, in which the state's highest court heard arguments last week. The court has not ruled in that case.
More...
He probably looked up her social media/voting record and didn't like what he saw.
 
Texas DA Ken Paxton says he'll accept judgment, won't contest facts in whistleblower lawsuit. The catch? Apparently he's still not admitting guilt, and is trying to maneuver things so he doesn't have to submit a deposition under oath.

Ken Paxton says he'll accept judgment, won't contest facts in whistleblower case
https://abc13.com/ken-paxton-whistleblower-case-texas-attorney-general-lawsuit/14340222/

Attorney General Ken Paxton sought Thursday to end the long-running whistleblower lawsuit against him - and avoid sitting for a deposition - by saying he would no longer contest the facts of the case and was prepared to accept any judgment.

The move came after he appeared to exhaust his options to reverse a Travis County judge's order that he and three top aides answer questions under oath. The all-GOP Texas Supreme Court ruled against Paxton on that issue last week.

Paxton's office portrayed Thursday's move as one that would finally put an end to a costly and distracting lawsuit, in which his former top deputies allege they were illegally fired for reporting the attorney general to law enforcement alleging abuses of office. But a lawyer for one of the whistleblowers said the lawsuit was "not over," and Paxton was just trying to delay it further.

"Today, my office acted to end this wasteful litigation by filing an amended answer that - consistent with the previous decision to settle this case - will enable the trial court to enter a final judgment without any further litigation," Paxton said in a statement. He added that he "will not allow my office to be distracted by these disgruntled former employees and their self-serving sideshow."

With his latest court filing, Paxton is essentially dropping his denial that he violated the Texas Whistleblowers Act - one of the allegations that the Texas Senate acquitted him in his impeachment trial last year. The filing emphasized that it should not be "construed as an admission" of guilt by Paxton or his office.

State Rep. Andrew Murr, the Junction Republican who was the top House impeachment manager, claimed vindication after Paxton's new filing, saying he has "dropped all pretense of innocence."

"He's admitted to what many in the Texas House have known in our hearts to be true: he flagrantly broke the law, violated the Whistleblower Act and betrayed the trust placed in him by retaliating against his own team, those who bravely reported his illegal actions," Murr said in a statement.

Whether Paxton's reversal in the courts actually ends the case remains to be seen. The whistleblower's lawyer, Tom Nesbitt, said Paxton's latest maneuver is "another desperate stunt by Ken Paxton to prevent the truth from coming out."

"Ken Paxton has never answered questions about his illegal and corrupt conduct," Nesbitt said. "He is clearly terrified of doing so - even if it means taking a different position now about him breaking the law than he did at his impeachment trial."

The whistleblowers - four former top deputies - filed suit against Paxton in 2020, alleging they were improperly fired for reporting him to the FBI. They said they believed he was misusing his office to help his friend and campaign donor Nate Paul.

The whistleblowers almost settled with Paxton for $3.3 million early last year, but state lawmakers balked at using taxpayers dollars for the settlement and the House chose to investigate the underlying claims, leading to Paxton's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Paxton after a trial in September, and the whistleblower lawsuit resumed.

The whistleblowers' claims have also been under federal investigation.

Paxton has spent the months since the impeachment trial trying to derail the revived whistleblower lawsuit, arguing it was already effectively settled, even though the Legislature still had not funded the $3.3 million. But multiple judges have rejected that argument, and last month, a Travis County district judge ordered that the case move forward with depositions.

Paxton announced Thursday's filing on the radio show of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, saying his office has decided "we're not playing this game anymore."

"Give us whatever liability you think we have, whatever damages," Paxton said. "The end result is the Legislature has already ... said they're not paying anything and so there's no reason for us to let them harass my office when we're dealing with all these immigration issues and suing Pfizer and we've got this huge Google lawsuit."

The whistleblowers have said they are intent on having their day in court and want to see Paxton answer questions under oath.

"We are not going away," one whistleblower, Blake Brickman, said at a news conference after Paxton's Senate acquittal. "For us this case has always been about more than money. It's about truth. It's about justice."
 
Paxton loses again in court, endlessly wasting tax payer dollars.

Texas court dismisses Paxton lawsuit against Yelp over crisis pregnancy center labeling
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...t-yelp-over-crisis-pregnancy-center-labeling/

A district court in the state of Texas has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Ken Paxton against Yelp, after he claimed the company misled the public that crisis pregnancy centers in the state offer limited services.

A judge in Bastrop County dismissed “with prejudice” all claims against Yelp in an order filed Wednesday.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Yelp began notifying users that crisis pregnancy centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.”

Paxton sued Yelp last September, arguing that the language was misleading. Yelp, which is represented by the law firm Haynes and Boone, LLP, changed its language to say “Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers.”

The Texas attorney general argued that the review site violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act for “inaccurate and misleading language.” Paxton’s lawsuit said the company can’t mislead the public because it “disagrees with our state’s abortion laws.”

Yelp preemptively sued Paxton last year in federal court in the Northern District of California, in an effort to get the state lawsuit tossed. It was dismissed under a Supreme Court precedent that prevents federal courts from hearing a case by someone being prosecuted in state court. Yelp is appealing the dismissal of its federal lawsuit.

In an emailed statement, a Yelp spokesperson said the company is pleased with the Bastrop County judge’s decision “that this meritless lawsuit should not have been brought in Texas.”

“The trust and safety of our users is one of Yelp’s top priorities, which is why we take extensive measures to provide consumers with relevant and reliable information when they search for local businesses on our platform,” the spokesperson said. “This is especially critical when people are searching for healthcare services on Yelp.”

The company vowed to continue “vigorously” defending constitutionally protected rights and fight government officials who try to censor truthful information from consumers.

“The First Amendment exists to prevent government officials like Mr. Paxton from suppressing true statement they may dislike – whether that be just in Texas or, in the case of Mr. Paxton’s prosecution of Yelp, anywhere that Yelp applies to the notice,” the statement said.

The company said Paxton’s lawsuit “sets a dangerous precedent” by using his power and office as a government official “to politicize and punish speech on issues that he disagrees with.”

The Hill has reached out to Paxton’s office for comment about the dismissal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top