Roe v Wade<\/em> has been \u201cdecided law\u201d in the United States since it was pronounced in 1973. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the 7 to 2 majority decision for the Court, laying out a right to privacy based in the United States Constitution. The decision weighed the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body, versus the right of the fetus inside of her. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Blackmun and the Court determined that the government (the state government usually) could not regulate the woman\u2019s right to control her body, until such time as the fetus could exist outside of the woman\u2019s body . That was approximately twenty-eight weeks after conception.\u00a0\u00a0While that decision has been \u201ctrimmed\u201d, allowing more state regulations (and restrictions), the Court has upheld the\u00a0Roe\u00a0<\/em>decision for forty-seven years. In a major companion\u00a0\u00a0case in 1992,\u00a0Casey v Planned Parenthood<\/em>, the Court recognized that advances in science allowed for earlier survival of fetuses, and that the State could regulate abortions earlier in the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey<\/em>\u00a0also created a different standard for regulating legal abortions, those now before twenty-four weeks.\u00a0\u00a0It allowed states to create regulations for abortions prior to fetal \u201cviability\u201d. But it stated that those regulations couldn\u2019t create an \u201cundue burden\u201d that would prevent women from having the procedure.\u00a0\u00a0But still, in\u00a0Casey<\/em>\u00a0the Court upheld the \u201cright to privacy\u201d decision of\u00a0Roe<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s been the \u201cstate of the law\u201d for the past twenty-nine years. States that have anti-abortion majorities in their legislatures have pushed the \u201cundue burden\u201d standards, creating law after law restricting legal abortions. And the Court has consistently defended the Roe-Casey<\/em> standard: until yesterday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless of your opinion about women\u2019s rights and abortion, you have to admire the work of the Texas Legislature. They knew that direct regulation of early, legal abortions would be thrown out under the Roe-Casey<\/em> standard. So they found a way \u201caround\u201d the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead of \u201cregulating\u201d directly by creating legal barriers, the State of Texas has taken a \u201ccivil\u201d approach.\u00a0\u00a0If they directly stated their goal of making all abortions illegal six weeks after conception, the law would be thrown out.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, they gave every citizen \u201cthe right\u201d to sue any other citizen who aids someone to get an abortion after the six week deadline.\u00a0\u00a0All of those sued could be liable for up to $10,000 in damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is an old legal maxim, \u201cYou can sue for anything\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0But in reality, to take someone to Court, the first hurdle is to show that you have \u201cstanding\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0Standing in civil court means you can show direct damages from the person you are suing \u2013 that you have been \u201churt\u201d and need to be made \u201cwhole\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0If you can\u2019t demonstrate that damage, you don\u2019t have standing in court to bring the case.\u00a0\u00a0But what the State of Texas did, was to make EVERYONE damaged by the abortion after six weeks, giving EVERYONE \u201cstanding\u201d to sue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman getting the abortion can\u2019t be sued (that would create an undue burden). But the nurse who led her to the exam room, the doctor who performed the procedure, the secretary who set up the appointment, the driver of the car who took her to the procedure:\u00a0all can be.\u00a0\u00a0All of them can be liable for up to $10,000.\u00a0\u00a0Even if a court determines they aren\u2019t liable, they still are forced to defend themselves and pay for attorneys.\u00a0\u00a0If they don\u2019t defend themselves, then the court would rule against them.\u00a0\u00a0And they would have to do it over and over again, for each abortion performed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opponents to the Texas \u201ccivil law\u201d asked the Supreme Court to \u201cenjoin\u201d the state from allowing it to go into effect. The Court declined to intervene, in a 5 to 4 decision. The three Justices appointed by President Trump; Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were joined in the majority by Justices Thomas and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts and the \u201cthree liberals\u201d on the Court; Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor were in favor of \u201cstaying\u201d the law, but were out-voted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The majority \u201chid\u201d behind a legal technicality. They claimed that they weren\u2019t \u201csure\u201d they had the legal power to regulate this novel \u201ccivil\u201d action without a full hearing and explanation. And, they \u201crelied\u201d on \u201cassurances\u201d that the Texas state courts would somehow regulate this. But the Justices in the majority are very much aware that this was a way to circumvent Casey\u2019s <\/em>undue burden standard \u2013 by placing a civil \u201cburden\u201d on all of the other folks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the short term, abortions in Texas are limited to six weeks.\u00a0\u00a0Since many women don\u2019t even know they are pregnant in six weeks, their \u201cright\u201d to make choices for their bodies is gone.\u00a0\u00a0And what about those women who can\u2019t afford to go out of state to get a later abortion? they are faced with the choices of keeping an unwanted pregnancy, or finding an illegal abortionist.\u00a0\u00a0The impact is most severe on the economically dis-advantaged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My mother had an expression: “If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander”. Perhaps this is the “new” way to change our society. If it worked in Texas for abortion law, perhaps it might work just as well in New York or California or Illinois for – say – gun laws. This is the “Pandora’s box” Texas, and the majority of the Court, opened.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTexas<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Sue Me, Sue You Blues<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This Court<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Result<\/h3>\n\n\n\n