[tomder55]

No ;not because it violates the unconstitutional 'Roe v Wade ' decision

It is unconstitutional because it creates what the libs call a vigilante system where someone not involved in the specific case can bring a civil case forward .

SCOTUS did not hear the case over procedural issues. When they do hear a case against the law ;they should strike it down .....and the conservative justices should lead the charge.

Plaintiffs must show they suffered an injury to sue.

“The Court has rejected the proposition that ‘a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right,".....“A regime where Congress could freely authorize unharmed plaintiffs to sue defendants who violate federal law not only would violate Article III but also would infringe on the Executive Branch’s Article II authority,”....“Private plaintiffs are not accountable to the people and are not charged with pursuing the public interest in enforcing a defendant’s general compliance with regulatory law.”

The quotes above are from a recent majority opinion authored by Kavanaugh . (TransUnion v. Ramirez)

The libs hated this ruling because it struck down a law they like . But the Texas law also allows people without standing to sue .

Will conservatives condemn the court when they rule the Texas law is unconstitutional for the same reason they overturned the law in the Transunion case ? No doubt . But they will herald the ruling when the libs try to give standing to someone suing gun manufacturers when some state legislature gives them the power to do so .

[jlisenbe]

That's a good post. As I understand it, they enlarged the concept of "standing" because that is going to be the tool for enforcement. The state of Texas will not enforce the law, but instead will allow anyone who desires to sue abortion providers. That strikes me as really weird and even somewhat cowardly.