You might want to think a bit more carefully about what that means: it’s establishing private bounty hunters who need very little evidence to use the legal system to hurt you – for example, they can require you to show up in person in a court hundreds of miles away from where you live – and who can see a substantial financial upside but are insulated from losses if they lose the case. Courts are prohibited from using a successful defense to block a repeat filing, allowing venue shopping to target the same person.

Think about what this means: someone leaves an abusive relationship, and the abuser can use this to target everyone who helps her alleging that they intended to help with an illegal abortion and they have to prove they did not, with no way to recover damages even if they do successfully defend themselves.

This is most of the things “tort reform” conservatives have railed against for years before deciding it was good for women but not corporations. They would go absolutely nuts if someone passed a law allowing you to sue someone claiming that they intended to use their gun to commit a crime.

Yikes, that actually sounds pretty bad too. So… deregulation is the best regulation, like in most other cases?

Yes, I for one long for the days when rich people can do whatever they want and let the rest of us deal with the downsides.

That is what deregulation proponents are calling and it’s why the promote binary thinking rather than pushing for nuanced regulation — kind of like how you know the proponents of that hill don’t care about preventing abortions because if they did they wouldn’t block real sex education and contraception would be universally available.

Seems like you are promoting vigilantism? This doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

After further consideration, I agree. Deregulation is the best regulation.