Lawyer defending Texas abortion ban is exactly as bad as you might expect

0

On November 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two challenges to Texas’s Heartbeat Act, which prohibits six-week abortions without exception, and directs citizen vigilantes in and out of state to prosecute anyone. suspected of aiding and abetting the procedure, including, for example, an Uber driver simply escorting someone to their appointment. While other similar restrictive measures have been rejected in court, it is this unique structure that SCOTUS cited in September when allowing SB 8 to stand, and that its designers deliberately designed knowing it would make the SB 8 more difficult to block. What kind of person would help craft such a barbaric and wildly fucked up law, which typically denies pregnant women the right to make decisions about their own bodies and specifically forces a 12-year-old girl to have her rapist? child? And what’s more, what kind of person would then come before the highest court in the land to defend it, even after the devastating impact it has had in just two months? Obviously, an evil comic!

Jezebel reports that Jonathan mitchell cut his teeth as a clerk for notoriously conservative Antonin Scalia, is a member of the right-wing federalist society, helped craft a previous Texas abortion law overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, did work on “Religious freedom” for a southern organization The Poverty Law Center is classified as a hate group and has been the “brain” of an anti-union legal campaign. But of course, that’s not all.

Mitchell’s resume also includes:

  • Arguing in a Supreme Court brief that the overthrow Roe vs. Wade will offer women the opportunity to change the way they prostitute themselves, writing: “Women can ‘control their reproductive life’ without having access to abortion; they can do this by abstaining from sex.… One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to have unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sex on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this Court announces the annulment of Deer, that person may simply change their behavior in response to the court decision if they no longer want to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
  • Calling for court rulings in favor of marriage equality and against bans on sodomy “as lawless as Deer,“And asking the court to” write an opinion that leaves these decisions hanging by a thread. “
  • Represented a group that asked for exemptions from anti-discrimination laws in order to be able to refuse to hire LGBTQ people.
  • Representing a group that did not like the Harvard Law Journalthe use of “racial and gender preferences” when selecting members and articles, claiming it discriminated against whites and men, and stating that it “diluted[s] the quality of the students ”in charge of the publication.

Either way, it’s a big surprise that this guy thinks he should be in charge of what pregnant women are and aren’t allowed to do with their bodies.

If you would like to receive the Levin report daily in your inbox, click here register.

Nice to meet you, planet earth

In other terrifying news from SCOTUS …

Mike Pence continues to do as impressive a job as him in the fight against COVID when it was his real job

Somewhere else!

Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply