A self-described "disgraced" and "disbarred" former Arkansas attorney filed a lawsuit against a Texas abortion provider on Monday.
Oscar Stilley, 58, of Fort Smith, Arkansas was a practicing lawyer until he was convicted of federal tax evasion in 2009. He was subsequently disbarred in 2010 and was still under house arrest as of Monday.
That has not stopped Stilley racing to the courthouse to bring what is believed to be the first lawsuit filed under Texas' restrictive new abortion law enacted earlier this month.
The target of Stilley's lawsuit was Dr. Alan Braid, a Texas physician who publicly admitted in a Washington Post op-ed published Sunday to performing an abortion that was illegal under the new law, known as S.B. 8.
S.B. 8 prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, and opens up the doctors who perform them, the women who get them and anyone who might help along the way to $10,000 civil penalties if sued in state court.
In an interview with KNX, Stilley said he filed the suit in order to test the constitutionality of S.B. 8, of which he was dubious.
"Well, I couldn't sleep yesterday morning," he joked. "I didn't get enough sleep and I was cranky. So I just decided to file a lawsuit."
In reality, Stilley filed the suit with hopes of achieving a constitutional ruling overturning S.B. 8.
"This is about the law," Stilley told KNX. "This law is straight up garbage, it's unconstitutional."
A 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade ruled that the U.S. Constitution protected a pregnant woman's right to choose to have an abortion without excessive government intervention.
Stilley explained he did not expect to succeed with the lawsuit, believing a judge would strike S.B. 8 down in deciding on the case. He told KNX he was prepared to appeal, or respond to appeal, at each judicial level all the way up to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
"It's terror," he said of S.B. 8, claiming the Texas government was intending to "intimidate doctors" with the specter of bankruptcy if they continued to perform abortions in the state.
Stilley also spoke favorably of Dr. Braid, telling KNX he thought the doctor had "guts" and "principle" for admitting his violation of S.B. 8 in the pages of The Washington Post.
"I respect that highly and I think he's a good guy," Stilley said. "He's fixing to get a lawsuit, let me see if I can get it by lunchtime," he joked, outlining his decision to name Braid as a defendant.
Stilley said he had not yet served Braid with the suit, despite multiple calls to the doctor's office.
"As soon as the name Oscar Stilley slides off my tongue, I hear a click and it's over," Stilley said. He claimed he also had no luck in coordinating with lawyers with the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Stilley said he wasn't interested in aggravating or embarrassing Braid, and wanted to expedite the lawsuit to "get a decision" that would ideally invalidate S.B. 8.
Though Stilley told KNX he would be "beyond shocked" if he succeeded on the suit, he wouldn't pass up the opportunity to bank $10,000 in damages—an amount guaranteed by the statutory language of S.B. 8.
"Yes, I'm asking for the $10,000," Stilley admitted. "If somebody's going to be getting $10,000, why shouldn't it be me?"
Ultimately, Stilley expressed confidence that his suit would be thrown out on procedural grounds. "I don't know this doctor. The doctor didn't hurt me. He didn't do me any wrong," he said. "So where's my standard? Where's my injury?"
The passage of S.B. 8 allowed for anyone, anywhere to sue a doctor who performs an abortion after six weeks post-conception, a woman who receives such an abortion, or anyone who aids or abets in her obtaining a violative procedure. The plaintiff can reside any U.S. jurisdiction, even outside Texas.
If Stilley's suit is thrown out on grounds that he could not articulate a personal injury resulting from Braid's performance of an abortion in violation of S.B. 8, the pool of potential plaintiffs who could take advantage of the law would be significantly winnowed.