Texas Abortion 'Bounty Law' Threatens Everyone's Rights, Professor Ikemoto Warns

Professor Lisa Ikemoto wrote an insightful response to the Texas abortion law that took effect Sept. 1. 

"On Sept. 1, the Texas legislature’s latest effort to ban abortion became effective, and the United States Supreme Court’s conservative majority declined to enjoin the statute until the constitutionality of law can be fully considered. In short, the Texas statute prohibits a physician from providing abortion services if a “fetal heartbeat,” as the legislature defined it, can be detected. This usually occurs at around six weeks, well before viability. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated in her Sept. 1 dissent, this law “is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents.”

The Texas statute further provides for enforcement by private civil action. Any person, other than a government employee, can sue a physician who performs an abortion or anyone who “aids or abets” the physician or the individual receiving the service. No wonder it’s called the Texas “bounty law.” The Texas legislature hopes that authorizing enforcement by private individuals will shield the law from constitutional challenge.

The statute’s most direct effects are already obvious. Providers have cancelled appointments and women have lost their already limited access to comprehensive health care. The real target, of course, is equality. In 2007, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that depriving women of the right to make an autonomous choice “reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution – ideas that have long since been discredited.”

But make no mistake, this law negatively impacts everyone. The Texas bounty law borrows from authoritarian regimes. It turns Texans into informants for the purpose of controlling Texans. The effects will resonate by sowing distrust and cancelling the values of care and assistance among family, friends, and strangers. In addition, the statute’s mechanism to end-run constitutional challenge could be used to curtail other enshrined rights. Lawsuits against those who “aid and abet” safe gun use, or church attendance, could be next.

This is not the path to freedom."