The Guardian reports:
The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a Supreme Court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, would compel women to practice abstinence as a way to “control their reproductive lives”.
Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”.
“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief.
Read the full article.
— Sam Levine (@srl) September 17, 2021
I’d wondered who devised the bounty-hunter enforcement mechanism for Texas’s SB8—a provision that, in addition to its sadism, seemed like a legal Rube Goldberg machine meant to elide judicial review. Turns out it was an ex Scalia clerk, Jonathan Mitchell. https://t.co/vyaqkkS2h9
— Moira Donegan (@MoiraDonegan) September 12, 2021
big story on Jonathan Mitchell, the attorney behind Texas’s new abortion law, in NYT today. https://t.co/55QVU6kjQJ I reported in 2019 that it was Juris Capital, a small Chicago firm, which was bankrolling all his anti-union lawsuits: https://t.co/LhKgotlCos pic.twitter.com/NvDWunCY9f
— Rachel Cohen (@rmc031) September 12, 2021