Before this becomes a complete crap-fest, just a couple of procedural things that I think are relevant to us:

The MSM making it out to be that it was some sweeping decision when it was a vote procedural issues. Standing- it's a bitch. And the left has jammed that down our throats for decades. Remember when the guys who wrote, ran and paid for Prop8 (sanctity of marriage) ballot measure in CA weren't allowed to defend it in court because they, of all people, didn't have 'standing'. So F the dems.

Funny, I don't hear much about 'democracy' and voice of the people... this is a law by duly elected officials, where are the dems demanding that we protect voting and representatives? So F the dems.

Psaki- she narrowly got out of the low blow she did to the male reporter. He's a male so he doesn't have a say abortion? Uhm, Jen have you ever had an abortion, since you are the final say on this? Uhm, Jen, according to your side, men can have babies too... And lastly, why is this a female only issue? Weren't we all babies? Doesn't that give us all a say? OR are you holding the unborn hostage? God, I used to have a thing for red heads, but after this dumb-ass, she cured me. So F the Dems...

Finally, and really the main part of my reason for bringing this up- the structure of the law. It's hard to get the actual legal issues and structure of the law, but the 'bounty' is interesting. Reminds me of the ADA compliance lawsuit/shakedowns. But what I'm concerned about is the left taking a similar strategy on guns. Not sure how it could actually work, but I could see them, with their lack of respect of the 1A and 2A that if you post something about being progun or say that looters should be shot, that they could sue you for formenting or enabling violence. Any Texas lawyers have any insights into the law and how that approach might work on different areas?