|
 The Republican-backed Texas law takes enforcement away from state
officials, instead empowering private citizens to sue anyone who
performs or assists a woman in obtaining an abortion after embryo
cardiac activity is detected - at about six weeks of pregnancy -
with awards of at least $10,000 for successful lawsuits. The Supreme
Court issued its ruling on Friday.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said the next day that
he directed his staff to work with legislators and the state's
attorney general on a bill that would similarly enable private
citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells
assault weapons or self-assembled "ghost guns," also with at least
$10,000 in damages.
Newsom's announcement, yet to be fleshed out, attracted a lot of
attention, but there are few other examples of states taking a
similar path targeting rights beyond abortion.
Legislators in five other Republican-led states have introduced
abortion bills modeled on the Texas law, similarly structured to
avoid judicial review, according to the Center for Reproductive
Rights, a legal advocacy group favoring abortion rights. None have
yet been enacted.
The Texas law, known formally as S.B. 8, was designed to be
difficult for courts to block because it removed state officials
from enforcement, making it is hard for challengers to figure out
who to sue and obtain a ruling that would block it statewide. The
Supreme Court largely accepted that construct while allowing
abortion providers to proceed with a legal challenge aimed at some
medical licensing officials.
'A BIT OF AN INVITATION'
Critics have said that ruling would allow states to enact laws that
circumvent other recognized rights such as LGBT and religious rights
as well as guns.
"The court is not pushing back on the use of S.B. 8-style laws to
infringe constitutionally protected rights. I do think this is a bit
of an invitation to other states," said David Noll, a professor at
Rutgers Law School in New Jersey.
States seeking to roll back abortion rights may in the near future
not need to resort to novel mechanisms like the Texas law to avoid
running afoul of Supreme Court precedent on abortion. The
conservative justices who hold a 6-3 majority on the court indicated
during oral arguments on Dec. 1 in a case from Mississippi that they
are willing to undercut or even overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v.
Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.
[to top of second column] |
 In Illinois, one Democratic
legislator has proposed targeting gun dealers
with a measure similar to the one California is
discussing. National gun control activists sound
noncommittal. Stacey Radnor, a
spokesperson for the gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety,
said in a statement that Newsom's proposal is "an interesting
approach that we're going to examine further as we get more
details."
Groups favoring gun rights have called Newsom's announcement a
stunt, pointing out that California already has a law banning
military-style assault weapons.
"If they really wanted to be the full-blown aggressive so-and-sos
that Texas has been, they would ban handguns," said Erik Jaffe, a
lawyer who filed a brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of the
Firearms Policy Coalition gun rights group that has been critical of
the Texas law, said of California.
 Jaffe said Newsom, who in September survived a recall election,
"might not survive the political fallout" of such a measure.
James White, a Republican member of the Texas House of
Representatives who supports the state's abortion law, questioned in
a letter to the state's attorney general whether private individuals
are bound by the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage
nationwide. But White said in an interview he does not anticipate a
state law similar to the abortion law targeting the rights of
same-sex couples.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that who people decide to get married
to is left to their discretion. I don't know how you would get into
civil litigation," White said.
Advocacy groups for LGBT people said they have not heard of any such
proposals.
"I have not, and I hope I never do," said Shannon Minter, legal
director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, adding that any
such measures could run into other legal problems because they would
be unlawfully discriminatory.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott
Malone)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content |
