Letters to the editor

Editor, the Advocate:

First, I am not a lawyer – I have never spent a day in law school. But, my college business law classes taught that in order to sue someone or an organization, a person must have “standing” to sue. Such standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. I was also been taught that absent standing to sue, a lawsuit will be dismissed from the court without being heard.

Understanding that a person must have standing to sue, how can the new Texas anti-abortion law allow lawsuits from people who have not suffered an injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant? In other words, how could I sue my next door neighbor for driving her niece to a clinic to obtain an abortion? I am not harmed – have not suffered an injury – if my neighbor’s niece has an abortion. The fact that I would like to have the $10,000 bounty notwithstanding, I have not suffered an injury that can be traced to the conduct of my neighbor driving her niece to the clinic. I do not have standing to sue.

It would be very helpful if the Advocate would investigate this new law and explain to your readers how Texas courts can allow persons who are without standing to sue someone who facilitates another to obtain an abortion. I believe the legislature knows this law cannot pass judicial muster and is placing citizens who do sue a third party under the authority of this new law at jeopardy of being countersued. Those people will have standing because they will have been harmed by the conduct of the person who filed the original lawsuit and it is likely that the court will provide redress in a favorable judicial decision.

Carl Bankston, Victoria

Recommended For You

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

(3) comments

Rick Dockery

They are suing on behalf of the dead child

Mike Gomez

I have a feeling that this bill is just a Trojan horse because Republicans know that it is unconstitutional. You can’t empower vigilantes. They are hoping the Mississippi bill @15 months will be accepted as more moderate.

Glen or Janice Ullman

I think your right Mike, another Republican stink bomb…Glen

Welcome to the discussion.

Transparency. Your full name is required.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. And receive photos, videos of what you see.
Don’t be a troll. Don’t be a troll. Don’t post inflammatory or off-topic messages, or personal attacks.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.

To subscribe, click here. Already a subscriber? Click here.