Texas Abortion Law: Massachusetts Case For Overturning

The Supreme Court's decision not to block the Texas post-six-week abortion ban has caused abortion providers to shut down, despite the ban violating Roe v. Wade. The Texas law allows any civilian to sue Texans who aid in an abortion and to collect a bounty of at least $10,000 if they win in court. To counter this ban, Attorney General Merrick Garland should treat bounty hunting under SB-8 as a criminal deprivation of civil rights, which could lead to federal prosecutions under two sections of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. This law was passed to protect the civil rights of previously enslaved Americans who were targeted for extrajudicial violence by white supremacist vigilantes. A Massachusetts case has set a precedent for this, where the civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act was invoked to prevent a Harvard Square restaurant's neighbour from having a state-conferred veto power over liquor licensing within a 500-foot radius.

The Supreme Court's Whole Women's Health decision not to block the Texas abortion ban

The decision not to block the ban has been criticised as a blatant departure from the Supreme Court's own precedent. The court's majority, which included all three of Donald Trump's nominees, claimed that the court had not previously encountered legislative schemes that give private individuals the power to veto the provision of lawful services. However, this claim has been refuted, with a Massachusetts case establishing a precedent that contradicts the court's decision.

The Massachusetts case involved the use of the civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act to prevent a neighbour of a Harvard Square restaurant from having a veto power over the issuance of liquor licenses within a 500-foot radius. This case set a precedent that the Texas abortion law also delegates governmental power to private parties, giving them the unilateral power to inflict criminal punishment on those who assist with abortions.

The Texas abortion law has been compared to the Massachusetts liquor law, as both delegate quintessentially governmental power to private individuals or organisations. In the case of the Texas law, anyone on earth with an objection to abortion is given the power to inflict criminal punishment on those who assist a woman in terminating her pregnancy, regardless of whether the fetus had detectable cardiac activity. This delegation of power has been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of due process rights enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision not to block the Texas abortion ban has caused concern and criticism, with some arguing that the court is denying its own legitimacy and inviting chaos to replace the rule of law. The decision has also been seen as a blatant disregard for the illegality of granting bounties to private individuals, which is considered an unconstitutional money-making scheme.

Texas law empowers civilians to sue those who aid in abortions

The Texas abortion law, which came into effect following the Supreme Court's Whole Women's Health decision not to block it, has a particularly chilling aspect: it empowers any civilian to sue Texans who aid in an abortion and to collect a bounty of at least $10,000 if they win in court. This provision has been described as a bounty law, and it has been suggested that it could be treated as a criminal deprivation of civil rights, leading to possible federal prosecutions under two sections of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

The Texas law, which confers on private individuals the power to veto the provision of lawful services, is not without precedent. A Massachusetts case from the early 20th century involved the invalidation of similar schemes in cases involving land use and zoning. In the case in question, the civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act was invoked to prevent the neighbour of a Harvard Square restaurant from wielding a state-conferred veto power over the issuance of any liquor license within a 500-foot radius.

The Texas abortion law delegates governmental power to private parties, giving literally anyone with an objection to abortion the unilateral and unfettered power to inflict criminal punishment on whoever assisted a woman to terminate a pregnancy. This is a blatant violation of Roe v. Wade, and it has been argued that the law has fatal constitutional flaws.

The Texas law has been described as an unconstitutional money-making scheme and a bounty law that provides financial incentives for people to sue those who aid in abortions. This has a chilling effect on abortion provision and could lead to people being scared to even contemplate having an abortion, let alone seek one.

The Texas law has been challenged in court, and in one case, a Texas man who sued his ex-wife's friends for allegedly helping her get an abortion dropped his lawsuit. The case had worried abortion rights activists as it targeted those who helped the patient, rather than the patient herself. The man in question, Marcus Silva, was represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the lawyer who masterminded the Texas abortion law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland should treat bounty hunting under SB-8 as a criminal deprivation of civil rights

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Whole Women's Health decision not to block the Texas abortion ban, Attorney General Merrick Garland should treat bounty hunting under SB-8 as a criminal deprivation of civil rights. This could lead to federal prosecutions under two sections of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act was passed to protect the civil rights of formerly enslaved Americans who were targeted for extrajudicial violence by white supremacist vigilantes. The Texas law, which allows any civilian to sue those who aid in an abortion and collect a bounty of at least $10,000 if they win in court, has fatal constitutional flaws and blatantly violates Roe v. Wade.

A Massachusetts case established a precedent for this approach. In the case, the civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act was successfully invoked to prevent the neighbour of a Harvard Square restaurant from having a state-conferred veto power over liquor license issuance within a 500-foot radius. This statute was enacted by Congress to provide a federal judicial remedy for violations of constitutional rights when state judicial remedies are blocked, as is the case with the Texas abortion law.

The Texas abortion law delegates governmental power to private parties, giving anyone with an objection to abortion the unilateral and unfettered power to inflict criminal punishment on those who assist a woman in terminating her pregnancy. This is a clear violation of due process of law, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, which does not permit the delegation of power to private, nongovernmental entities.

By treating bounty hunting under SB-8 as a criminal deprivation of civil rights, Attorney General Merrick Garland can send a strong message that the granting of bounties to private individuals for their own benefit is an unconstitutional money-making scheme and a blatant violation of civil rights.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was passed to protect the civil rights of previously enslaved Americans

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, also known as the Enforcement Act of 1871, was passed to protect the civil rights of previously enslaved Americans. The Act was designed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed due process and equal protection under the law to all citizens, including the four million formerly enslaved Black men and women in America.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, extended civil and legal protections to former slaves and prohibited states from disenfranchising voters on the basis of race, colour, or previous servitude. However, despite these protections, Black citizens continued to face violence and intimidation at the hands of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who sought to deny them their legal rights. In response to these attacks, Congress passed a series of Enforcement Acts, including the Ku Klux Klan Act, to empower the federal government to protect the civil and political rights of individuals.

The Ku Klux Klan Act made it a federal crime to deny any group or individual the rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution. It specifically targeted the Ku Klux Klan and included provisions to combat their paramilitary vigilantism. The Act made certain acts committed by private persons federal offences, including conspiring to deprive citizens of their rights to hold office, serve on juries, or enjoy equal protection under the law. It also authorized the President to deploy federal troops to counter the Klan and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to make arrests without charge.

The Act was passed within a month of President Ulysses S. Grant requesting broader authority to intervene in reports of widespread racial threats in the Deep South, particularly in South Carolina. Grant's aggressive campaign against the Ku Klux Klan was ultimately successful, and the Klan was completely dismantled during this "first Klan" era. The Act has been invoked in modern times to protect civil rights, including in a 2020 lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the Republican Party for conspiring to disenfranchise Black voters.

The Texas abortion law delegates governmental power to private parties

The law has been criticised for its constitutional flaws and its attack on abortions protected by Roe v. Wade. It has been argued that the law violates the due process of law, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, by delegating governmental power to private parties. This delegation of power is particularly concerning given the religious and ideological nature of the abortion debate. The Texas abortion law has been compared to a Massachusetts liquor law case, Grendel's Den, in which the Supreme Court held that veto power could be invoked for religious, ideological, or other illicit reasons, making the scheme unconstitutional.

The Texas abortion law has far-reaching implications, with other states rushing to clone it. The law has created a climate of fear and uncertainty, with people scared to even contemplate having an abortion, let alone seek one. It has also encouraged Americans to monitor each other's behaviour and report their friends, family members, and neighbours to the authorities. This has been referred to as the "Snitch State", with invasive forms of coercion imposed to advance conservative ideological goals.

The Texas abortion law, therefore, represents a significant departure from established precedent and has been described as an "unconstitutional money-making scheme". It remains to be seen whether the law will be successfully challenged or overturned, but in the meantime, it continues to have a chilling effect on abortion access and free speech in the state.

Frequently asked questions