A Texas judge just personally canceled the abortion drug Mifepristone, and his decision has caused quite the rhymes-with-ruckus. The legal group filing the lawsuit, Alliance Defending Freedom, was chuffed enough about stripping freedom from 85 million American women that they probably would have taken the case pro-boner. The most interesting aspect of the decision, though, is the so-called “standing” of the plaintiffs in the case.

In theory, someone bringing a lawsuit should be able to demonstrate that they personally are or might some day be harmed by the law or action being challenged. If the drug is as dangerous as its detractors contend, for instance, American women would appear to have standing to bring the suit, but they have declined to, in droves. Millions of American women have used the drug in the last 23 years, with a death rate of .0005%. (By comparison, the risk of death by Viagra is ten times greater, with most victims succumbing after smacking themselves hard in the face, or tipping over, or being shot by their wives.)

Anyway, American women were not involved here, or considered particularly important. The plaintiffs included an assortment of anti-abortion groups, including the Christian Dental Association (a.k.a. “Holy Molars”), and three individual doctors. The doctors were simply undone by the possibility that they might some day be required to come to the aid of one of those five-in-a-million women suffering an incomplete miscarriage after using the abortion pill. The standing of the plaintiffs would have been increased significantly if they had included a few letter carriers expected to drop off the drugs in mail slots, before going straight to Hell. Instead, it was these doctors.

You have to admire their sensitivity. Imagine the horror of being confronted by a woman hemorrhaging profusely and asking for help! What if she has a fetus somewhere in there! Is the doctor expected to be party to an abortion? It’s unthinkable. Unsurvivable! His very soul is at stake. He should be free to fold his arms in front of the suffering woman and the remains of her fetus, and let God decide.

Okay. It seems a little sketchy, though, in terms of standing. Surely it is more apt that the FDA approval of Viagra should be revoked on behalf of millions of tired women who now refer to their own crotches as “the dead zone” and who think thirty years of faking orgasms was plenty good enough and they’d just like to park it with a good book and a pitcher of Pinot without having some man in stinky socks and a sweaty undershirt climbing all over them every night for the rest of her life. That’s standing.

But back to those three anxious doctors.

I believe they really need to have a little more skin in the game. And I know just the skin. I know what you’re thinking, but no, I don’t mean the deflated post-neutering ballsack with the crucifix tattoo, although that would demonstrate sincerity. That’s not near enough skin for this game.

Anyone bringing this lawsuit should acquire a minimum of four small children to take care of personally, or three if one of them has special needs, and lest they be tempted to hire out help, they should be relieved of any income above the federal minimum wage of $14,500 a year. In addition, the successful plaintiff should be required to demonstrate they have put on eighty pounds and can’t sneeze without doodling in their shorts anymore.

Assuming they are men, they should be further advised they will no longer be attractive, and should they protest that their weight and irritability has never kept the ladies away before, they should be reminded that they no longer have money.

We’ll see what the sitting Supreme Court justices have to say about standing. Meanwhile, encouraged by the success in Texas, anti-abortion activists are now setting their sights on the bleach and knitting-needle industries. Get going on those sweaters pronto.