[ad_1]
Oklahoma’s anti-abortion law that totally isn’t just a religious belief codified into law is the strictest abortion ban in the nation. And given that the whole separation of church and state thing isn’t enough, some folks have been decided to change strategies by playing chicken— you can define life at conception all you want, but are you actually ready for that?
One of the great aspects of immanent critique is that the reductio ad absurdum arguments will actually have legal consequences that spill over from merely restricting folks with uterus’ autonomy into the things that really matter: money. Why? Because unexpected collateral damage of the religious abortion bans could be companies that are destroying the environment.
So here’s my modest proposal: If Oklahoma lawmakers want to open up anybody who endangers the fate of a blastocyst to the threat of lawsuit, does that mean that any old deputized person can file suit against polluters who knowingly introduce chemicals into the environment that endanger pregnancies or fertility? Can a person who has suffered recurrent miscarriages in Oklahoma sue companies that introduce chemicals into the environment with a known link to miscarriages? Can we look at, say, areas around manufacturing plants where chronic infertility is higher than the general population, conclude that the polluters are to blame, and file suit? I think we should.
Chemicals used in fracking, for example, are associated with an elevated risk of miscarriage in the population near where the practice occurs. If Oklahoma conservatives are truly concerned with the fate of blastocysts and embryos, they should care deeply about sheltering fertile women from these harmful chemicals. Should concerned citizens file suit against frackers for knowingly causing miscarriages? I say yes.
Goodbye NIMBY, hello NIMU (Not In My Uterus).
If Oklahoma lawmakers are not open to lawsuits against polluters, then they’re not standing up for the continuation of pregnancy, they’re standing up for a reduction in agency for women. That old joke about conservatives only caring about babies until they’re born doesn’t even apply here; if conservatives are not preventing all of the possible ways that a pregnancy could end—including environmental factors—then they are not concerned with the preservation of unborn life; they are primarily concerned with the elimination of choice for women.
…
Why not use their own laws against them? Why not use laws designed to “protect” babies to actually go after entities that are responsible for ending wanted pregnancies? If America’s on the highway to hell, let’s at least have a singalong on the bus.
I, for one, am all for it. Many a voter has been vocal after the Dobbs leak while firms have remained largely silent. Maybe this law will be what it takes for lawyers and firms to put their billables where their mouths are.
Let’s Sue Big Polluters Under Oklahoma’s Wacko Abortion Law [The Daily Beast]
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
[ad_2]
