So, the new law signed in Texas will ban abortion before 6 weeks, typical tradcon policy, nothing particularly exciting.
The exciting part is this - the law won't be enforced by the state, but instead puts legal liability on the providers of such services to be sued by literally anyone, regardless of their residency.
[Surprisingly, it's the BBC that has the least biased explanation of how exactly this will work.] (https://archive.is/AZJlN)
Unlike in other states, the Texas law does not let state officials enforce the ban. Anyone inside or outside the state instead now has the power to sue abortion providers - or anyone who could have helped a person to get the procedure - after the limit. They can seek up to $10,000 (£7,061) in damages per defendant.
The Texas Tribune reports that supporters of the bill hope this novel provision will trip up legal challenges to the legislation, as without state officials enforcing the ban, there will be nobody for pro-women's rights groups to sue.
This change from the usual tactics completely shuts down the traditional feminist tactic of overturning whatever annoys them through court cases backed by dirty money funds from the likes of the ACLU and the Melinda Gates Foundation. That would only exonerate each individual doctor, it wouldn't overturn the law. They'd be burning through cash until they run out trying to fight this by acquitting everyone.
If this works, it needs to be used against every single facet of female privilege, bankrupt their legal machine and end their tyranny.
The Future Isn't Female, if we use our power to stop it.
Interesting twist. Would courts actually think any 3rd party has "standing" to bring these cases?
There is precedent, which is sacrosanct for courts.
Title IX "abuses" can be sued and reported from anywhere in America against anywhere in America, by anyone. There's a well-known middle-aged MRA who has sued dozens, if not hundreds, of universities and colleges over their favoritism of women in their policies. And won most of the cases. But he's some middle-aged man in one state, not a prospective student, not in the school, not even in the market to be in a school in the future, and nowhere near most of the schools in question.
He has zero "standing", but because of the way the law was worded, literally everyone everywhere at all times has more or less a "deemed" "standing". If that concept is used as precedent in this... The result is more likely than you'd think.
Presumably, yes. And even if not, she could just identify as male for the duration of the court appearance, anyways.