Something I don't understand about this insane Texas abortion law

[Silent3]

It's the most twisted concept of "standing" I can think of. That pretty much anyone, anywhere can be considered to have standing to file one of these lawsuits against someone else, without any personal stake in the possible abortion other than not liking women getting abortions.

If that's accepted, is there any limit on the number of people who can sue? Can one person be sued over and over and over again by hundreds of people objecting to a possible abortion?

[littlemissmartypants]

1. Good question. nt

[MissMillie]

2. The law is designed to give private citizens "standing"

to sue other private citizens (where there was none before) for committing this "crime."

As for how many people can sue, that's a good question. I haven't read the law, so, I don't know.


I wonder if this opens the door for a private citizen to sue another private citizen for robbing a bank, or for public drunkenness, or for auto theft...

[femmedem]

3. Or for polluting even if you can't prove direct personal harm.

If anyone can sue someone for abetting an abortion, it opens the door to anyone suing for greenhouse gas emissions.

[cbabe]

4. ...or having a vasectomy.

[Irish_Dem]

9. The courts can make anything a crime, and then allow random people to sue.

Seems like an unreasonable punishment to me.

[Mad_Machine76]

5. It will be interesting

to see how this all plays out. Most average people don't even have the knowledge or experience to file a lawsuit and see it adjudicated and that if a bunch of lawsuits get filed, I am curious to see how the court system is able to handle the potential flood of cases. My thought is that this law is intended more as a deterrent to people having or providing abortions.

[Irish_Dem]

10. If you get $10K, people will figure out how to do it.

Beginning attorneys might split the bounty.

Right, it might be more a way to scare people.

[Dawson Leery]

6. Conservatism claimed to oppose the idea of anyone filing lawsuits.

Just another lie.

[orwell]

7. I find organized religion abhorrent...

...can I sue evangelicals for their climate change denial?

Of course not.

This is why I have never trusted the legal system. It is mostly dependent on those who sit in judgement, not in the facts of the case. I would never trust judgement of my actions to my fellow citizens. I have served as a jury foreman and I was wholly unimpressed with both the lawyers who tried the case and the jury who was to decide it. The case should have never been brought by the DA in the first place. It was brought to harass a gang member who the cops didn't like. None of us liked him. But the case was completely without merit. They wasted 2 days of our time just to fuck with this asshole.

When choices for the Supreme Court now represent ideologies rather than legal scholarship or a high level of logical reasoning, the entire court system is exposed for the sham it is. It all becomes an exercise in semantics to justify your preconceived view of the world.

Why is it that we basically know how the judges are going to vote? Have you ever asked yourself that question?

When I put this question to a friend of mine that clerked for an appeals court judge he just shrugged and said "that's our legal system and it's the best in the world."

Really?

I would hate to see the worst...

[maxrandb]

20. Can I sue the Catholic Church for raping children?

How about my neighbor that attends the local Catholic Church?

If someone can sue a person who gives a ride to an abortion clinic, can't I sue every person that attends Catholic church?

[orwell]

24. I like it...

...sounds like a plan.

[marybourg]

8. The courts have yet to weigh in on the issue.

[Dirty Socialist]

11. It's not gonna work

Hardly anyone is going to snitch on their neighbor about this. And if anyone does (which I doubt), the accused will go to court to overrule it.

[Captain Zero]

13. But it means an ass like RudyG can show up and accuse someone and sue

and throw a lawsuit at them.

[Dirty Socialist]

14. I doubt it

Rudyg doesn’t live in Texas. And if he did, he would be living in a gated community.

[dsc]

17. you do not have to be a texas citizen to sue under this law

nor do you have to be one, to be sued.

[leftieNanner]

18. Oh, I don't agree with you

Anti-abortion fundie lunatics will line up around Women's Healthcare Clinics and photograph license plates all day long.

And if they target a lower income person who can't afford to fight in court (take days off work, hire a lawyer, etc.) they will win every time.

I think it may work in the short term - but Texas Republicans may have opened a can of worms that might come back and cause unforeseen problems. We can hope anyway.

I also hope a court will stop this law.

[ret5hd]

19. You just gave me an idea...

I think my spouse and I will now be frequent visitors at our area Planned Parenthood sites.

[Buckeyeblue]

12. This is judicial chaos

Each person who files a suit should be couter-sued. That should be the strategy.

[Captain Zero]

15. Can I show up and file a voter rights lawsuit?

If they give standing for this abortion law wouldn't they have to give standing for anything?

[Buckeyeblue]

23. Agreed.

What if millions of people filed suit against the governor's wife?

[0rganism]

16. I had a similar question: what other forms of speech can a legislature proclaim to be "actionable"?

raised it last night in a fit of insomnia: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215807138

Could a state simply declare voter registration drives openly actionable?

Seems to me we've headed into some uncharted legal spaces here, the courts need to weigh in with more than silence and quick dismissals.

[hamsterjill]

21. Again, I'm wondering if it's going to be retroactive.

So, I know women in Texas who have gotten abortions. Do they need to fear being exposed now? Some money hungry jerk going after them?

Next up - - -I don't like the way you're raising your teenage son. You are allowing him to hang around with another teen who is openly gay. Can I sue you? (Example only, of course. Can't believe I feel like I need to clarify but I do.)

There is no end to the ludicrous!

[sl8]

22. Doesn't look like it:

Not multiple penalties, anyway.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961

[...]

(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award
relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection
(a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant
previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under
Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion
performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the
particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or
induced in violation of this subchapter.
[...]

[Silent3]

26. Thanks

I guess they're trying to slightly limit the insanity of this bill to help protect it from being overturned, but, even totally aside from Roe v. Wade precedent, I just can't see how this concept of standing can be constitutional.

There might not be specific language in the US constitution regarding standing, but the courts have long enforced historical standards of jurisprudence as well, and by those standards, this seems to me a completely unworkable concept of standing.

[ZonkerHarris]

25. it's about enabling anti abortion activists to be economic terrorists