The Texas Abortion Ban Is a Roadmap to Privatized Oppression

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone this week told the Supreme Court that people who object to his state’s abortion ban would have a chance to challenge it—eventually. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the Stone process could be “many decades” and the law, S.B. 8 would have an unceasing effect on the Court’s long-held guarantee of rights.

The prospect of this happening clearly terrifies the justices. S.B. 8., which is intended to not only evade federal courts’ pre-enforcement reviews but to also delay any rulings on the constitution of law by state courts can easily be modified to target any rights that are deemed inconvenient or dangerous by state legislators.

S.B. 8 was adopted on September 1 and prohibits abortion after detectable fetal heart activity. This is usually around six weeks into pregnancy. It does not charge state officials to enforce its terms. The law permits “any person”, who allows or assists in a prohibited abortion, to sue the “any one”. The law promises that plaintiffs will be awarded minimum $10,000 in “statutory damages” for each abortion, and reimbursement of legal expenses if they are successful.

S.B. S.B. 8 contradicts what the Supreme Court said regarding constitutional limitations on abortion laws. However, because of its unique enforcement mechanism anyone trying to present that argument in federal court will struggle to identify appropriate defendants. When it heard oral arguments in the two cases challenging S.B., Monday’s Court had to grapple with that problem. 8.

Stone repeated the observation that those who are facing S.B. Eight lawsuits may be brought against the government. However, even if the judge in state agreed to it, that ruling would be applicable only to this case.

S.B. 8 of the S.B., such a ruling would not prevent lawsuits against any other defendants. This decision would not stop other lawsuits against the defendant. He could still be sued in any one of 254 counties. Each of these lawsuits could be financially draining, as S.B. 8 prohibits prevailing defendants from pursuing attorney fees.

A losing S.B. If a losing plaintiff appealed the decision could have a wider impact. But, for that very reason, any supporter of the law would not be inclined to file an appeal.

S.B. S.B. 8’s success is not dependent on winning or filing anti-abortion suits. Just the threat of costly, endless litigation can be enough to severely curtail access to abortion in Texas. In September, the percentage of Texas abortions was 50 percent lower than in 2020.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has filed a Supreme Court brief to support S.B. pre-enforcement challenge. 8. It warned that laws that discourage or inhibit the exercise of constitutional right violate them, and that similar laws could be used by state legislators to weaken Second Amendment rights, religious freedom, or freedom speech.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Chief Justice John Roberts) and Chief Justice John Roberts also expressed concern. Roe V. Wade. Kavanaugh asked, “If anyone sells an AR-15 or declines to supply a good/service for use in the same-sex wedding,” would they be liable for one million dollars each to every citizen?” Would federal courts have any power to stop such lawsuits from progressing through state courts?

Stone acknowledged that his objection to S.B. 8. did not depend on the scope of the constitutional rights or the bounty. He gets credit for being consistent, but this invitation to privatized oppression ought to give Americans pause, regardless of how strongly they may feel about abortion.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.