In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston takes an in-depth analysis of the state laws recently examined by the Supreme Court. He explains, in particular, the Texas law which authorizes private individuals taking civil action against an abortionist.

While Brian‘s educational background is in comparative languages, he has worked for many years in the legal world, not only as an advocate (lobbyist) for many years in Sacramento and the various state capitols of the West, but as a young man he spent several years working as an assistant at a Los Angeles entertainment law firm.

Drawing on this experience, Brian explains the stark contrast between the two states’ abortion laws recently considered by the US Supreme Court.

The Louisiana law simply draws a line at 15 weeks gestation and prohibits abortion beyond that date. The Texas law - the so-called “heartbeat law” - requires an abortionist to check the gestation of the pregnancy and if it’s six weeks or more, to also check for the beating heart of the child.

As the human heartbeat can be monitored as early as 18 to 21 days from conception, any competent medical professional would be able to find the heartbeat of the six week-old child.

But the most important aspect of the Texas law is that it does not create a crime when an abortionist performs an abortion. Instead it allows any individual citizen who is harmed by an abortion to be able to seek relief in civil court for that harm.

Brian goes to great lengths to explain the dramatic difference in the two types of law - civil and criminal. They require completely different standards of evidence, and offer very different answers for the harms done by the lawbreaker.

The discussion of prosecutorial discretion is particularly important.

The best and most startling example of the contrast between civil and criminal law can be found in the two cases of O.J. Simpson and the Simpson-Brown murders. While the criminal trial dragged on for weeks and ultimately ended in an acquittal, when the Brown family had a chance to sue O.J. for the harm of killing their daughter and sister, the case was settled in an afternoon.

He was found guilty, and because they had clear standing. They suffered clear arms because of his actions, and were given an award of millions of dollars. This can hardly compensate for the intentional loss of life, but the purpose of the civil law is to give individuals their day in court and the ability to address an injustice, a serious wrong done to them .

Brian gives several humorous examples of why the difference between civil and criminal law should be very clear to all of us.

As a point of fact, in modern society you can be sued for nearly anything. Whether that suit will prevail is another matter. But if serious harm has been done and you can demonstrate standing to the court that YOU were harmed by an abortion, an individual - such as the father of the child, or the grandparents of the aborted child, clearly have a very, very reasonable case in seeking justice for the unnecessary destruction of that life.

267: Civil vs. Criminal Distinctions in the Case of the Texas “Heartbeat Law” 27:58 Share

Life Matters

Shownotes Transcript

267: Civil vs. Criminal Distinctions in the Case of the Texas “Heartbeat Law”