Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters] – A Texas law that bans most abortions was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. This has allowed states the opportunity to limit other rights, including guns. They can use the new enforcement mechanism to copy it. It remains to be seen how many of them will follow through.

Texas’ Republican-backed law gives state officials no enforcement authority. Instead, private citizens can sue any woman who assists her in having an abortion. This happens at six weeks after the embryo is born. For successful cases, awards will be at least 10,000. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued their ruling.

California Governor Gavin Newsom was a Democrat. He said that the following day he had directed his staff members to collaborate with the legislators and state’s attorney General on a bill which would allow private citizens to sue anybody who makes, distributes, or sells assault weapons, or self-assembled ghost guns, with at least $10,000 of damages.

Although Newsom’s statement is still being drafted, it attracted much attention. However, there are very few examples of other states following a similar route to restrict rights.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights (a legal advocacy group for abortion rights), five Republican-led states also have passed abortion bills that are similar to Texas laws. They were similarly designed to avoid any judicial review. No such legislation has been passed yet.

The Texas law is known as S.B. 8. was created to be hard to block by courts because it eliminated state officials. It made it hard for challengers and lawyers to determine who to sue in order to obtain a blocking ruling. Although the Supreme Court accepted this construct, it allowed abortion providers and others to challenge some of their medical licensing officers.

‘A BIT OF AN INVITATION’

Critics claim that the ruling will allow states to pass laws that bypass other rights, such as LGBT rights and religious freedoms.

“The court will not rescind the S.B. “8-style laws infringe Constitutionally Protected Rights. David Noll of Rutgers Law School in New Jersey, said that he thinks this “is a little bit of an invite to other states”.

States looking to restrict abortion rights could soon not be required to use novel mechanisms, such as Texas’ Texas law, to comply with Supreme Court precedent on abortion. During oral arguments in a Mississippi case, the conservative justices of the court who make up a 6-3 majority indicated that they would be willing to overturn or reduce the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion across the country.

Illinois’ Democratic legislature has suggested that it be used to target gun dealers, in a manner similar to what California is currently discussing. The national gun control advocates are noncommittal.

Stacey Radnor spokeswoman for Everytown for Gun Safety. Radnor stated in a statement, “An interesting approach we’re going back to examine further as more details become available.”

Supporters of gun rights argue that Newsom’s announcement is a stunt. They point out that California already prohibits military-style assault guns.

Erik Jaffe (a lawyer representing the Firearms Policy Coalition, which has been criticizing the Texas law) said that handguns would be banned if they wanted to become the aggressive “full-blown so-and-sos” like Texas.

Jaffe stated that Newsom who was elected in September, survived the recall election and “may not be able to withstand the political fallout of” such an act.

James White, a Republican Texas House of Representatives Member, asked the state’s attorney General in a letter whether the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States bounds private individuals. White, however, stated that he did not expect a similar state law to the law on same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court has decided that the decision of who people marry is up to them. White stated that he didn’t know the best way to get involved in civil litigation.

Advocates for LGBT People said that they had not been aware of such proposals.

Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said, “I haven’t, and I hope never will,” adding that such legal measures might run into legal problems as they could be illegally discriminatory.