Thinking about the risks imposed by Texas Heartbeat Law, it occurred to me that a potential plaintiff with the very highest chance of winning a case would be the mother herself if she later regrets he choice. Is that idea legally supportable?
I think that without the consent of the mother, the existing medical privacy laws (like HIPPA) might make it hard for a real third party to show that a doctor had acted in a way prohibited by the law.
It seems like the doctors could mitigate their risk by adding some wording to the surgery consent form I assume they all require. For example, if the doctors required a tick in a checkbox saying "I have blank medical condition requiring an abortion." If someone without a medical condition wants an abortion bad enough, they can lie. If the doctor thinks the lie isn't believable, he refuses to do it.
Would the doctor then have a powerful defense (at least legally) due to the medical safety exception), against both 2nd party and 3rd party seeking to enforce through a civil suit?