Looks like strict liability to me.
This is a BRILLIANT strategy!
Not only does it use feminist legal theory against their own special interest, it puts a knife to the throat of the “sue gun manufacturers” lobbyists!
But how does one establish exclusive damages in such a case?
“I want damages because I’m depressed?” “How much?” “Why that much?” “Prove it was the abortion that caused the damages!” “What else in your life went wrong?” “Why don’t you sue your public school system because you failed 10th grade math?”
Basically, this is “I want damages because of how I think.”
Also, a plaintiff will face the “several / proportionate liability” issues. The doctor didn’t get her pregnant!
Next, we’ll have women who had abortions suing because the aborted child could have supported them later in life, etc. Or suing in the name of the child for being hurt/damaged/murdered in the course of the abortion.
Not getting into the abortion question itself, at all, but clearly, this is not about damages. The courts would quickly see through this. This is simply a backdoor attempt to drive abortion providers out of practice.
It’s a legal non-starter. The problem with legal non-starters is that they weaken your strongest case by conditioning the public and courts to believe you have no case involving any real issue!
In addition, the strong case here is very simple:
Abortion and the so-called “Right To Privacy” are not federal constitutional issues. Abortion is clearly a state issue.
Finally, regarding the SCOTUS-invented “Right To Privacy;” Any constructionist court is going to get rid of the entire concept as it applies to abortion (what does abortion have to do with privacy?)
Does the Constitution guarantee me the right to eat spinach in private? Is there some danger that abortions would be publicly announced?
The entire Roe v. Wade is bad law, and everyone knows it. Abortion advocates like it because it gave then the decision they like, but in private they acknowledge it is very bad law.