As far as I understand that's one of the more insane parts of this law. You don't need to show you suffered any harm or loss, absolutely anyone can sue under this law.

This seems ridiculous, to the point that I feel like I'm missing something.

Does that mean that multiple people can sue a single person?

If the person proves that there was no abortion, who covers the legal fees?

Would it be possible to bait people into suing, get expensive lawyers and then provide proof that there was no abortion?

Take this with a huge grain of salt as my information is mostly indirect and I'm certainly not a lawyer. But I've read that there is actually a provision in there that prevents the legal fees for the defendant to be covered even if they win.

I suspect this will crash and burn not because it is insane, but because it's also a mess legally. But that will take time.

> Does that mean that multiple people can sue a single person?

Yes, the bill enables thousands of suits to be filed, even if frivolous, against abortion providers.

> If the person proves that there was no abortion, who covers the legal fees?

The bill explicitly covers the fees of the person bringing the suit, but provides no means for the person being sued to recover legal costs.

The combination of these two facts means that operating a clinic that even is abortion adjacent will no longer be economically viable.

If I were living in Texas and looking for ways to combat this law, I'd look into launching some sort of DDOS on its proponents by suing as many of them as frequently as possible on frivolous grounds, like if they took a teenage child to school in a neighbourhood where there is also an abortion clinic within 2 hours of walking.

Fortunately, I don't live anywhere near Texas...

It's probably using some twisted justification like saying that abortions cause harm to society as a whole, and that gives any member of society standing.

So raising a child in very suboptimal conditions is high chance of child turning criminal later on. Or parents dropping put of school to provide for the child. It can well be argued both ways.

More like "I'll be sent to hell if I don't save a soul". It's all selfishly motivated.

AFAIK that is the definition of a crime, and is enforced by the state accordingly.

Technically, there are some ways to demonstrate loss of harm. For example, imagine the father of the potential kid, not agreeing with the abortion, can make a reasonable claim.

The abortion has this ugly side, the father has zero rights. This is why I cannot agree with any side, pro-abortionists are wrong in some points, pro-lifers are wrong in some points and there is no effort to make it right, from any side. Such laws are not making it right, they are just an abuse (or farce) of the judicial system.

Does that imply that the fathers should be always financially liable for paying for the ongoing pregnancy or are you just speaking your mind without thinking of how that can affect women?