Actually, now that I think about it. What's even the standing here? How do they even have grounds to sue. If you're not even pregnant, you have been prevented from having an abortion. If you are pregnant, you're classifying your child as "articulable damages".
That's the trick with which Rehnquist attempted to reject the Roe vs. Wade case.
Jane Roe had already given birth, so she would not have standing, and no case would be possible because a case would longer than the period for a pregnancy.
Regardless of Roe vs. Wade being a terrible decision, that also would have been a bad precedent allowing governments to freely violate actual rights.
Actually, now that I think about it. What's even the standing here? How do they even have grounds to sue. If you're not even pregnant, you have been prevented from having an abortion. If you are pregnant, you're classifying your child as "articulable damages".
Standing is a cudgel to be used against you. Not for you.
Ah yes, I forgot.
That's the trick with which Rehnquist attempted to reject the Roe vs. Wade case.
Jane Roe had already given birth, so she would not have standing, and no case would be possible because a case would longer than the period for a pregnancy.
Regardless of Roe vs. Wade being a terrible decision, that also would have been a bad precedent allowing governments to freely violate actual rights.
Up to a point, I'd say there was standing because she already had the imposition of the law imposed on her by the state.