You could have knocked me over with a feather when, first, the pro-abortion movement barely made a peep when the Texas "heartbeat" law was passed last spring and, second, the Texas abortion clinics all spontaneously ceased all post-six-weeks abortions on the day the law took effect. It turns out, however, that neither development was a complete surprise to the anti-abortion movement in Texas. This National Review article describes the jurisprudence and legal strategy that went into crafting and passing the bill.
Texas passed so many other hot-button bills this session that leftists were significantly distracted and nearly failed to make the heartbeat bill a priority. Meanwhile, the controversial private-enforcement mechanisms that renders the heartbeat bill immune to injunction was a technique that already had survived test-runs in small Texas jurisdictions.
8 comments:
I am deeply pro-life, but this still seems like a manipulation of the legislative-legal interaction to me. Maybe that's the only way the game can be played, but it worries me.
Reminiscent of a 'Lawfare' type tactic, and I really don't think it will stand for very long. These days, the playing field in social politics is between some kind of outrageous tactic that is finagled into action, with the gains being hurriedly made before the courts will take corrective action and bring it to a halt.
So - what happens when the Progressive Democrats put the same kinds of legal structures into effect against, say, gun shops or gun manufacturers? I expect they will be highly effective at getting Soros/Gates et al to finance an army of shrill 'private citizens' to bring suit as directed, with top legal assistance proffered free of charge, of course, and excellent sympathetic press coverage...
"what happens when the Progressive Democrats put the same kinds of legal structures into effect against, say, gun shops or gun manufacturers?"
Maybe that's exactly why this is brilliant. If the Dems fight it, they cripple a lawfare technique that they surely would have turned to soon regardless. If they don't, fewer abortions. Seems win-win to me.
They decided long ago that lawfare was the game we were going to play. We're just catching up now.
douglas, that's a nice theory but so long as judges continue to rule based on 'the end justifies the means' it's unlikely to work out that way in practice.
That's no reason not to keep pushing the abiding principle that, whatever the rules are, they must be applied on both sides of the political spectrum.
No disagreement with that, Tex. Justifying some legal bankshot that involves performing a questionable act in the hopes that it gets struck down for everybody does not appear to me to be a sound plan.
I wouldn't recommend doing it if the only purpose were to hope that the same tactic would be outlawed for the other party. I think the better result is not to use the qui tam approach generally, but I can live with the qui tam approach--not ideal but not a deal-killer constitutionally--as long as it is politically neutral. In order for it to be politically neutral, we have to be willing to use it unless and until it is repealed for everyone.
I see it as more important that Texas has chosen not to go the way of Soddom. That is the far more critical consideration, to avoid a negative Judgment from God and the angels of death.
The country is falling apart precisely because of the child murder, child sacrifice, child torture going on, that most of the American population have ignored since they were born.
This has consequences.
Post a Comment