Posted on 12/10/2021 9:48:52 AM PST by SmokingJoe
The legal tactic is not a legal tactic. It’s a granting of legal rights to pursue a cause that the State has made declaratory. It’s not new. It’s just the first time it’s been used in Abortion.
The State simply declared that the heartbeat of a baby in the womb is detectable in general at a certain time in pregnancy. It’s a statement. A statement can’t be litigated unless it’s false which in this case it’s not.
Nothing will happen to Texas for making a factual declaration.
Texas added that its residents could sue an abortion provider that aborts a baby in the womb with a heartbeat. That’s also declaratory in its format. Texas does not say such abortion providers SHALL BE sued.
All the Texas law does is confirm that its residents can sue in these circumstances.
In order to extend these State declarations to a ridiculous issue, one would have to persuade a legislation to pass and a governor to sign the ridiculous into law. NOT GO I NG TO HAPPEN.
Abortion is not a ridiculous isolated issue bandied about by a fringe element of society such as your ridiculous example.
The people who have natural standing, and grounds to sue, are the fathers of the babies.
The fathers of the babies should sue everyone who was complicit in killing their daughters and sons between conception and birth.
I think you’ve missed what Texas did that is so different. Normally, under American judicial rules, you must be able to show that you have personally suffered a harm in order to have standing to sue some one. i.e. Bob can’t sue Joe for harming Mary. Only Mary has standing to sue Joe, not a 3rd party.
What Texas did that was so different was to grant standing to Bob (a 3rd party) to sue Joe (the abortion provider) in state court for providing Mary with an abortion. This was for the express purpose of preventing the Texas law from being challenged in Federal court as under federal rules, the claimant also needs to show personal harm by the entity they are suing. Since no Texas official has “harmed” anyone under the Texas law by enforcing it as a part of their official duties, Texas hopes to shield itself from suit in Federal court, thereby preventing the law from being struck down. This is the loophole that Texas was trying to take advantage of and what the SCOTUS bypassed by allowing the abortion providers to sue the state of Texas.
> “Bob can’t sue Joe for harming Mary. Only Mary has standing to sue Joe, not a 3rd party.”
It’s not about Bob, Joe, Mary.
It’s about Texas residents, Abortion providers, Texas laws.
The new Texas law declares at how many weeks a baby inside the womb has a detectable heart beat.
Another Texas law restricts Abortion practitioners from aborting babies inside a womb that have a heart beat.
Neither law can be overturned unless the US Supreme Court were to legalize Abortion up to the day of delivery. Thus, the states have leave to determine at what week a baby in the womb may not be aborted on demand.
The basis of a lawsuit brought against an abortion provider need not involve DIRECT injury but injury to community.
An example is a neighbor who piles up and leaves unsightly trash on their property in view of the neighborhood. A law exists that unsightly trash left abandoned is illegal. Another law says neighborhoods and communities can take action against the abandoned trash heap.
So, if Texans don’t want Abortion providers cutting out babies with beating hearts in their state, they’re free to sue the provider in court for violating law.
I guess I don’t know how to explain it any better for you, but you seem to be getting what I’m saying.
He has other compromises. He is taking anti seizure medications. That can screw up your will power and perceptions. That was my experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.