"It has no precedent for how we've done things in the past," states Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio September 2, 2021 about Texas's new anti-abortion restrictions, considered the most restrictive so far from the creative Republican toolbox.
Totenberg may be correct regarding the Texas law's effort to grant near-universal "standing" as an enforcement mechanism to people wishing to sue anyone assisting women in obtaining abortions now illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, a circumstance during which most women have not yet noticed a pregnancy. If unchallenged, these parties may collect $10,000 from anyone who even gives information to a patient attempting to obtain an abortion if it in fact violates the new restrictions.
This seemingly universal standing appears to be unique to one local Berkeley Law School professor, who stated, " I can’t think of any other arena in which there is universal standing. It seems designed to create vigilantes, something Texas is already quite good at. It places the highest possible value on human embryos" adding "I would like to propose universal standing for police misconduct and all civil rights violations." “Standing” is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. Having standing does not mean that a party will win the case; it just means that the party has alleged a sufficient legal interest and injury to participate in the case.
But Totenberg wasn't considering the precedent set in SLAPPs, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which uses civil, as opposed to criminal courts, to harass and punish people for simply speaking up about public matters, as four people did over UC's plans for People's Park in 1991 when the university tried to convert the park into a sports facility for sand-pit volleyball.
-more-