3 ms·

I find it curious that the law itself allows for civil suits. Why aren't these just criminal prosecutions?

detaro 5y ago
Because states can't prosecute it, they already lost that one before the Supreme Court. So the hack is that the state isn't the one enforcing it.
jcranmer 5y ago
Because abortion is a constitutional right in the US, and it would immediately be enjoined as a flagrant violation of constitutional rights (at least pending the current court's likely, but not certain, overruling of Roe v Wade and Casey). Instead, this is a way to get around constitutionality since it's not the government who is violating the constitution. Never mind all of other constitutional bits about due process that are being horribly trampled on (such as allowing people to sue without standing...).
- splitstud 5y ago
  Would you care to go on record as asserting that limits can not be placed on Constitutional rights?
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  This just shifts enforcement to the courts, which are part of the government.
smt88 5y ago
It's a legal trick to prevent federal courts from immediately ruling the law unconstitutional. It is certainly the end of medical privacy in the US, but it may even be the end of the Supremacy Clause, which gives the federal government the ability to pass laws that override state laws. It's difficult to overstate how much of a threat this law is to the US Constitution. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/meet-the-legal-strategist-behind-the-texas-abortion-ban/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/meet-the-legal-st...
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The best suggestion I heard for fighting this would be to have Massachusetts or some other deep blue state copy and paste this law to get around the 2nd amendment. Edit to add because I guess it wasn't obvious enough: The strategy would force the Supreme Court to quickly strike down both laws.
  - smt88 5y ago
    I thought about that and wonder if that still leaves us with an utterly broken country anyway.
  - lliamander 5y ago
    I'm not sure how those two are equivalent. The second ammendment is in the literal text of the Constitution, whereas abortion is derived (as far as I can tell) solely from case law.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      AIUI, Roe v Wade says that abortion rights flow fairly directly from the 14th amendment.
      - lliamander 5y ago
        "Directly" is a strong word. It's an interpretation which assumes there is such a thing as a right to an abortion such that the states would then be violating by passing legislation. Now, I am not of the opinion that something has to be explicitly protected in the constitution for it to be a right. I prefer to assume a limited view of what behavior government has the authority to limit. However, if something is not explicitly protected in the constitution, then it is at least up for debate. There's procedural implications for this distinction as well: the Supreme Court can overturn its prior precedent (as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson). But the Supreme Court cannot overturn the text of the Constitution itself. Only an amendment by Congress can do that. EDIT: Just to clarify, that procedural distinction means that the Supreme Court could uphold the Texas law while overturning a similar law restricting gun ownership without contradiction.
Imnimo 5y ago
I think the law is built as sort of a convoluted legal Rube Goldberg machine to sneak around existing case law about abortions, so all of these weird constructions are to avoid doing something that's already been ruled unconstitutional.

Because states can't prosecute it, they already lost that one before the Supreme Court. So the hack is that the state isn't the one enforcing it.

jcranmer 5y ago

Because abortion is a constitutional right in the US, and it would immediately be enjoined as a flagrant violation of constitutional rights (at least pending the current court's likely, but not certain, overruling of Roe v Wade and Casey). Instead, this is a way to get around constitutionality since it's not the government who is violating the constitution. Never mind all of other constitutional bits about due process that are being horribly trampled on (such as allowing people to sue without standing...).

splitstud 5y ago
Would you care to go on record as asserting that limits can not be placed on Constitutional rights?
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
This just shifts enforcement to the courts, which are part of the government.

smt88 5y ago

It's a legal trick to prevent federal courts from immediately ruling the law unconstitutional. It is certainly the end of medical privacy in the US, but it may even be the end of the Supremacy Clause, which gives the federal government the ability to pass laws that override state laws. It's difficult to overstate how much of a threat this law is to the US Constitution. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/meet-the-legal-strategist-behind-the-texas-abortion-ban/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/meet-the-legal-st...

bryanlarsen 5y ago
The best suggestion I heard for fighting this would be to have Massachusetts or some other deep blue state copy and paste this law to get around the 2nd amendment. Edit to add because I guess it wasn't obvious enough: The strategy would force the Supreme Court to quickly strike down both laws.
- smt88 5y ago
  I thought about that and wonder if that still leaves us with an utterly broken country anyway.
- lliamander 5y ago
  I'm not sure how those two are equivalent. The second ammendment is in the literal text of the Constitution, whereas abortion is derived (as far as I can tell) solely from case law.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    AIUI, Roe v Wade says that abortion rights flow fairly directly from the 14th amendment.
    - lliamander 5y ago
      "Directly" is a strong word. It's an interpretation which assumes there is such a thing as a right to an abortion such that the states would then be violating by passing legislation. Now, I am not of the opinion that something has to be explicitly protected in the constitution for it to be a right. I prefer to assume a limited view of what behavior government has the authority to limit. However, if something is not explicitly protected in the constitution, then it is at least up for debate. There's procedural implications for this distinction as well: the Supreme Court can overturn its prior precedent (as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson). But the Supreme Court cannot overturn the text of the Constitution itself. Only an amendment by Congress can do that. EDIT: Just to clarify, that procedural distinction means that the Supreme Court could uphold the Texas law while overturning a similar law restricting gun ownership without contradiction.

Imnimo 5y ago

I think the law is built as sort of a convoluted legal Rube Goldberg machine to sneak around existing case law about abortions, so all of these weird constructions are to avoid doing something that's already been ruled unconstitutional.