A non-profit sued it's way to SCOTUS a few years ago in defense of frogs.

Absurd arguments both for and against standing are hardly new, and most don't have statutory authority behind them.

> Absurd arguments both for and against standing are hardly new

Narrowly crafting laws to avoid pre-enforcement review specifically to maximize the impact knowing that they will almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional is, on the other hand, unusual, if perhaps not completely new (something similar may have been done before, but I am not aware of any examples.)

There's a federal law giving people the right to sue fax spammers- statutory damages of ~$500 per fax, specifically to get around freedom of speech. I think it was in the 1996 telecom law.

Not sure if it's been litigated.

> A non-profit sued it's way to SCOTUS a few years ago in defense of frogs.

Is a non-profit defending frogs meant to be self-evidently absurd?

For standing to sue? Yes

Why would a special interest group be able to sue to protect frogs, but another wouldn't be able to sue to protect unborn babies?

They're going to have some issues bringing frogs in as a party to a lawsuit (those little green bastards can't even sign the appropriate paperwork... lack of opposable thumbs) but there's nothing legally noteworthy about a non-profit group obtaining standing to sue the government about an environmental or ecological issue that is covered under statute, or under the executive branch/EPA's enforcement jurisdiction.

>that is covered under statute,

And this Texas law gives statutory standing.