Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Texas abortion law unleashes bounty hunters

Texas abortion law unleashes bounty hunters

Leen Garza participates in a protest with others against the six-week abortion ban at the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2021. The Justice Department is asking a federal court in Texas to issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction against a new state law that bans most abortions in Texas. The emergency motion filed Tuesday night, Sept. 14 says a court can issue such an order as a means of preventing harm to parties involved before the court can fully decide the claims in the case. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)

Leen Garza participates in a protest with others against the six-week abortion ban at the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2021. The Justice Department is asking a federal court in Texas to issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction against a new state law that bans most abortions in Texas. The emergency motion filed Tuesday night, Sept. 14 says a court can issue such an order as a means of preventing harm to parties involved before the court can fully decide the claims in the case. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)

The Supreme Court sequestered in its shadow docket after midnight has on Sept 1 in Whole Women’s Health v. Austin Reeve Jackson made several things clear.  First, the court has zero credibility. They no longer decide legal cases based on the Constitution, the law, precedent, science or facts. They decide solely on politics. 

Based on politics, not science or public health, they decided that people who oppose vaccines and masks have “my body, my right” to continue to harm others, exhaust medical resources, and prolong economic damage for religious reasons. But women whose decision does not impact public health or exhaust medical resources or prolong economic harm do not have a right to make their own medical decisions about their own bodies. For women, it’s “my body, somebody else’s right.”   

The Texas law the court upheld authorizes complete strangers, abusive husbands, rapist fathers, religious extremists, and mentally ill people – fully armed – to attack women’s private, personal, health-care decisions. They can sue and be rewarded with $10,000. We have had bounty hunters before. We had the Fugitive Slave Law where bounty hunters chased Blacks to return them to slavery. We had the KKK that were set lose by the government to enforce Jim Crow Laws and beat, burn, and murder formerly enslaved people or those who tried to help them. For centuries we said husbands were not state actors so they could freely beat and rape their wives. None of these actions turned out well for democracy or freedom or equality or decency or human rights. Yet this is the hell the Texas legislature wants to return to and the Supreme Court condones. 

While some of these same people bemoan the fate of the Afghani women and blame the Democrats (Republican President Bush started the war), they themselves seek to impose a regime on women as drastic as the Taliban. They want to let strangers spy on women’s every movement, report on where and when they are going for medical care, monitor medical staff, harass and sue counselors and friends. They have already set up a website to report women’s suspicious behavior – like Stalin in the Soviet Union.  The Morality Police in Iran arrested women for wearing headscarves too short and the “morals police” under the Taliban in Afghanistan beat women for wearing the wrong shoes – the only thing that could be seen under the head-to-toe black covering. Today armed men are roaming around Texas policing women’s behavior.  When does the airlift start to get the women to safety? 

Some in Arizona have already praised this ruling and said we should do it here in 2022. Those claiming to be “pro-life” are not – or they would get a shot and wear a mask, oppose the death penalty, leave water in the desert, pay for maternal health care etc. They do none of that.  They only seek to impose their religion on the rest of us. We won’t let them. 

Dianne Post is legal director for Secular Communities for AZ.  

 

  

  

 

 

One comment

  1. Nice, Dianne. I see how you twisted the argument to serve your one-sided purposes. Question: Had the Supreme Court sided against anti-vaxers and required them to submit their bodies for vaccination, would you have cried out in support of those folks and their “right” to do with their bodies as they see fit, including refusal to receive the vaccine? I’m guessing probably not. As for your comment that the decision to have an abortion “does not impact public health…” try telling that to the children that are ripped apart. I’m sure they’ll understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 
x

Check Also

PRO Act would destabilize Arizona’s construction industry

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly have wisely withstood pressure to support this legislation.  They can help Arizona businesses of all kinds by continuing to reject attempts to pass the PRO Act or any of its harmful penalties. 

/* code for tag simpli.fi */