By Openly Defying the Texas Abortion Ban, a Physician Invites a Lawsuit That Will Make Constitutional Objections Unavoidable

Alan Braid says he broke the law, which prohibits the vast majority of abortions, to make sure it would be tested in court.


Opponents of the new Texas abortion ban have had trouble identifying defendants they can sue to prevent enforcement of the law, which relies on private civil actions to deter the conduct it forbids. Now a Texas physician is inviting such a lawsuit by announcing that he defied the ban—a move that could finally make it possible to challenge the constitutionality of S.B. 8, which is plainly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's abortion precedents.

S.B. 8 prohibits abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women realize they are pregnant. The abortion providers and abortion rights supporters who challenged the law in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson estimated that it would affect at least 85 percent of Texas women seeking abortions. But in an attempt to frustrate pre-enforcement challenges, the law bars state and local officials from implementing its terms, instead authorizing "any person" to sue "any person" who performs a prohibited procedure, "aids or abets" it, or "intends" to do so.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently ruled that the Texas officials named as defendants in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson lacked the "enforcement connection" necessary to justify such a challenge—a conclusion that also poses a formidable obstacle to United States v. Texas, the Justice Department lawsuit seeking an injunction to block enforcement of S.B. 8. The 5th Circuit noted, however, that Texas judges who hear the civil actions authorized by the law would be obligated to consider constitutional objections to it.

San Antonio gynecologist Alan Braid, whose abortion clinics joined the other plaintiffs in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, could trigger such a case by revealing that he deliberately violated S.B. 8. "On the morning of Sept. 6," he writes in a Washington Post opinion piece published on Saturday, "I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state's new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care. I fully understood that there could be legal consequences—but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested."

As Braid notes, S.B. 8 has dramatically reduced access to abortion in Texas, since the threat of litigation has led clinics to curtail their services, forcing women to travel out of state for banned abortions, assuming they can afford the time and expense that requires. He describes one 42-year-old patient who already has "four kids, three under 12," but was too far along to qualify for a legal abortion in Texas. "I advised her that she could go to Oklahoma," he says. "That's a nine-hour drive one way. I explained we could help with the funding. She told me she couldn't go even if we flew her in a private jet. 'Who's going to take care of my kids?' she asked me. 'What about my job? I can't miss work.'"

Multiply that situation many times, and you can see that S.B. has had its intended effect even without producing a single lawsuit against someone who performs or facilitates a prohibited abortion. The threat of such litigation is especially daunting because S.B. 8 limits the defenses available to the targets of the lawsuits it allows and prevents them from recovering their legal expenses even if they nevertheless manage to win. Prevailing plaintiffs, meanwhile, are promised at least $10,000 in "statutory damages" per abortion, plus compensation for attorney's fees, and they need not allege any personal injury to bring a case.

Those incentives suggest that someone is bound to sue Braid, a decision that will ultimately replace S.B. 8's chilling effect with a ruling that the law is inconsistent with the right to abortion that the Supreme Court has said is guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which retained the "central holding" of its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, state laws are unconstitutional when they have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus"—a description that clearly applies to S.B. 8.

When the Court declined to intervene in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson earlier this month, it cited the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" that the 5th Circuit later addressed. But once a private party sues Braid, the constitutional issues raised by S.B. 8 will be unavoidable. The only way to uphold the law will be to renounce Roe v. Wade and its progeny. Although most of the current justices seem to disagree with those precedents, that does not necessarily mean they are prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop.

Update: Oscar Stilley, who describes himself as a "disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer," filed an S.B. 8 complaint against Braid on Monday in Bexar County, which includes San Antonio. Stilley, who is serving a 15-year federal sentence for tax fraud that he received in 2010, told The Washington Post his interest had been piqued by the $10,000 bounty and news coverage of Braid's stance. Stilley said he is not opposed to abortion but thought the law should be tested in court. "If the law is no good," he said, "why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it's garbage?"

NEXT: Rather Than Eliminating a Terrible Cruise Ship Law, Alaska's Lawmakers Just Want To Exempt Their Ports

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Once passed, the law was a heartbeat away from being challenged.

    1. At least it wasn’t stillborn, but still….

      1. Some think it is a miscarriage of justice.

        1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.VRx Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..

          Here………… Pays24

          1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Hax Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

            Here is I started.…………… JOBS BOX1

            1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FOR And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

              Try it, you won’t regret it!……………READ MORE

        2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.JUk Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

          Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

      2. They wish they could abort the law.

        1. Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.CGr Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

          Start today………………… IncomeOpportunities

      3. I fail to understand why abortion, outside of an actual risk to the mother’s life or a birth due to a rape, should ever be allowed. when my mother was giving birth to me I was too big for a “normal” birth, but the physicians were able to get me out of the womb despite this abnormality and here I am today telling you why abortion, EXCEPT to save the mother’s life, is wicked and should not be allowed. If a man and women want to fool around without a condom or the pill abortions for them should be outlawed.

        1. You don’t understand because we have had 50 years of propaganda pounded into our heads that killing of the unborn is ok. Just like the children born in Germany in the 1920 thinking that killing Jews was ok in the 40’s. They just didn’t know any different because the govt. told them since they were old enough to know that it was normal. But at least some knew it was wrong.

          1. Just like slaves weren’t considered human and could be bought, sold, and treated however the owner wanted, as if they were just property.
            Ironic that the same political party is so strenuously supporting the same thoughts about the unborn as they did about slaves.
            Makes you wonder if they really have changed their opinion of the latter.

          2. Germany was 98% protestant and catholic when voters elected catholic Adolf Hitler’s Christian National Socialist party and passed the Patriot Enabling Act and Kristallnacht laws. Angry Porkbarrel’s party has selective Alzheimer’s onsets.

        2. “If a man and women want to fool around without a condom or the pill abortions for them should be outlawed.

          If you voluntarily engage in viable breeding, you’ve already made your choice.
          If you ask an abortionist to kill the person who is the natural result of your choice, you’ve commissioned a hit from a serial killer.

          1. So what should the penalties be?

            1. Forced vaccination

              1. J&J vaccine only. Enjoy your thrombosis, irresponsible ho bags.

            2. Exactly the same as what Casey Anthony would have got if convicted for the mom’s, and whatever your average serial killer receives for your darling abortionists.

              1. So, first-degree murder for the woman?

                1. Definitely, because that’s exactly what she did. Zero difference from chopping the kid to bits in its cradle later that year.

                  1. It’s all for naught anyway because no male will ever sleep with most of the women protesting. Just look at the pictures. I didn’t realize being overweight and pale with rosacea and poorly drawn tats was considered attractive in liberal circles now.

          2. So basically you’re just anti-sex. Glad to know where you stand.

            1. Dude, have you ever seen photos of Trump/Coney’s Senior Antisex League protesting against individual rights for fertile women? That looks like a geriatric ward parade for Comstockism.

        3. “If a man and women want to fool around without a condom or the pill abortions for them should be outlawed.”

          If you shake hands with someone without gloves and catch a cold, then all treatment for your virus should be outlawed. You were irresponsible and should face the consequences.

          1. Why?

            Do you think children come from handshakes? Didn’t your singe, crack addicted whore mother show you the facts of life as she spit out diseased infants or abortions, depending on when the welfare hit?

            No one gets murdered if someone catches a cold.

            1. “No one gets murdered if someone catches a cold.”

              Not true. When you treat a cold, you kill viruses in your body. Same for if you kill tapeworms or other parasites.

              “Do you think children come from handshakes?”

              They come from something more natural as handshakes. People were having sex long before “handshakes” became a thing.

    2. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online.dd this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now……………… Visit Here

  2. Oh, well, to spur lots of conversation, I learned over the weekend that the original Hippocratic Oath included a clause where Ancient Greek doctors swore not to administer abortive pessaries to women. Found this article that goes into more depth on the history of the Hippocratic Oath, what it said about abortion, and abortion in the ancient world:

    “The Hippocratic Oath in Roe v. Wade”:


    Extra points if you actually read the article before commenting.

    1. “The Hippocratic Oath is old,”

      What trimester is it in?

      “and the translation that is used by physicians now is completely rid of the passage on abortion.”

      Then it’s a revision, not a translation.

      “Today’s version is more in the spirit of the original rather than a faithful translation.”

      Yup, revision.

      1. “Tara Mulder is bowling for abortion access. Check it out here.”

        Hmm…the link doesn’t seem to work. I presume she didn’t mean *blowing* for abortion, like Nina Burleigh.

        1. That’s your takeaway after reading the article? That it has a broken link.

        2. What about when Night Watchman said “the fact that the original oath (along with a noncompete clause) explicitly forbad abortion” when it actually forbad one specific method of abortion?


        3. What about when the New Number Two quoted a different translation or revision of the oath, that somehow generalizes the mention of pessaries: “Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”


          1. “Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.”

            Sourced from NOVA Doctors’ Diaries, PBS.

        4. Seems to me that “the original oath explicitly forbad abortion” is a memorized talking point, but not backed up by any depth of knowledge on the topic.

          1. Tell us about when a woman’s HO2 breaks.

          2. Plus – and this point can’t be emphasized enough – the Hippocratic Oath is *very old.*

            1. To be fair, just old, not very old. I beg your pardon.

      2. The Hippocratic Oath is old, has been translated and revised. Nobody disputes any of that. What is your point?

    2. Did you read the origina Greek, or the translation.

      Yeah, that’s what I thought.

      1. It is nonsense to argue about the translation of the discarded part an ancient oath written with no knowledge of modern medical science, while ignoring the moral imperative in the oath that has stood the test of time and is not debated: “first do no harm”.

        For some easy virtue signaling points, follow up with pregnancy is slavery and abortion laws are racist.

    3. No one cares. We all know your fucking dumb.

  3. “Elephant in the womb” is a decent pun but may have been excessively trunkated.

    1. We all know it couldn’t have been human according to progressives and the rest of the DNC death cult.

    2. That’s hysterical.

    3. Looks to me like the elephant is standing next to her womb, not overreacting, overrereacting, ovaryreacting… whatever.

    4. “Elephant in the womb”

      “Taking it from the Ass”. Both sides!

  4. Alan Braid, bravely implementing the death penalty for the crime of being inconvenient.

    1. An inconvenient youth.

      1. The baby doesn’t have a fever!

    2. Alan Braid is a fucking clump of cells.

      1. From Braidle to grave.

    3. The baby was trespassing. As as we know from J6, trespassing is a capital offense.

      1. An enslaving parasite to Rand. A criminal trespasser to Rothbard.

        Canonical libertarian cult heroes sure do love babies.

  5. “As Braid notes, S.B. 8 has dramatically reduced access to abortion in Texas, since the threat of litigation has led clinics to curtail their services, forcing women to travel out of state for banned abortions, assuming they can afford the time and expense that requires.”

    Wait, I thought anti-abortion laws *didn’t* reduce the number of abortions! That’s the talking point I heard.

    1. Wait, I thought libertarians were against policies proposed by moralizing bigots implementing policies from Top Men. That’s the talking point I keep hearing, but it doesn’t ring exactly true.

      1. You heard it here first, the Texas legislature is “Top Men”

        ‘Both Sides’ fail.

      2. Lol always delicious when peanuts like you whine their throats out 😀

      3. moralizing bigots implementing policies from Top Men

        That is not what the law does. It reserves the right of the People to decide as allowed by the Constitution. Socialists can’t abide a situation where Top Men don’t decide who gets punished by the process and where a jury would decide the merits instead of a credentialed public servant.

      4. Read the 1972 Platform. It shows that Libertarians are an alternative to looters with guns: both the girl-bullying Italian fascisti and the back-shooting wealth-robbing communisti. Yet both are here whining and claiming not to be worried about law-changing libertarian spoiler votes.

  6. “He describes one 42-year-old patient who already has “four kids, three under 12,” but was too far along to qualify for a legal abortion in Texas.”

    And adoption is not an available option because…

    1. The fear of a stranger raising her baby?

      Also, abstaining from crack for the next 6 months seems like a burden.

    2. Because maybe women don’t want to carry around a bowling ball in their abdomen for 9 months and then go through a dangerous procedure to give birth. Whatever the reason, it shouldn’t be up to you or the fucking Moral Majority.

      1. An ‘American socialist’ feels an infant human is a ‘bowling ball’.

        And it’s ‘moral majority’ name calling is severely outdated. I’m delighted to see socialists are behind the times.

        1. American Socia1ist has been exposed to be Buttplug trolling.
          It let’s Buttplug drop the pseudo-libertarian mask and indulge himself.

          1. He has a pseudo libertarian mask?

            1. He fashioned it from the skins of libertarian principles he butchered here.

      2. She participated in the baby’s conception. Given she has three kids, she knows what happens when a man ejaculates inside her vagina. A bee sting or a GMO potato didn’t cause this.
        When you choose the behavior you choose the consequences.
        The behavior also included failing to get a morning after pill or getting an abortion before the baby had a heartbeat.

        1. From now on, no doctor will treat your communicable illness.

          The next time you visit a restaurant and catch a cold, you participate in your subsequent fever or cold. You knew what could happen when you go out in public. It wasn’t an accident.

          when you choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences. The behaviour also included failing to stay at home. So now that you’re sick, suck it up and face the consequences for your irresponsible behavior.

          1. I’m not sure their tiny little brain could comprehend the logic you’ve laid out.

          2. You poor sad thing.

            The point of going outside one’s home is not getting sick. If you leave your home, you will not, simply by doing it, get sick.

            Fucking’s primary purpose is making offspring. That’s what it’s for, nothing else. The fact that it feels good is a bonus.

            If you fuck, and don’t take precautions if you don’t want offspring before or immediately after, then it’s on you. You’ve got six fucking weeks to come out of your haze and remember that you had unprotected sex and don’t want kids.

            After that, too late. You’ve made a kid.

            1. “Fucking’s primary purpose is making offspring.”

              Wrong. It’s for fun. How do I know? I’ve fucked many times without intending to create offspring. Once you try it, you’ll find out for yourself.

              “The fact that it feels good is a bonus”

              No. The fact that it feels good is THE POINT. The pregnancy is the unintended side-effect. Just like a cold is an unintended side effect of talking to contagious people.

              “If you fuck, and don’t take precautions if you don’t want offspring before or immediately after, then it’s on you.”

              If you eat food and don’t take precautions if you don’t want a tapeworm, before or immediately after, then it’s on you. You’ve got until the tapeworm’s eggs hatch to come out of your haze and remember that you ate contaminated food and don’t want tapeworms.

              After that, too late. You’ve made a tapeworm. No doctor is going to help you.

        2. She obviously didn’t choose the consequences- the assholes in the legislature did that for her.

      3. It’s up the the Supreme Court eventually. You know, one of the 3 branches of our representative republic. The Supreme Court giveth, and it can taketh away. I’m sure you’ll accept whatever the final decision is. Just like you accept roe. Right?

        1. Not real clear on how the Supreme Court is representative.
          Those it is supposed to represent don’t get too much of a say in who gets there, and we can’t get rid of any of them, no matter what they do.

          1. Yep. And when the Senate has two reps from a 500k populated state and two reps from a 40 million populated state, I’m not sure how representative it is.

            1. CA doesn’t give a shit about the Senate (which is about representing different constitutions and legal systems). CA only cares about wanting to bully their way through the electoral college. Here’s a hint:

              If you want the presidential vote to better reflect the will of all Californians, go for a proportional/district allocation like NE, ME

              If CA really want to lecture anyone else about representation, maybe they should increase the size of their own legislature. Which currently has ONE representative for every 500,000 CA. Which means their own assembly is less representative than the Senate.

        2. Germany had a Christian Supreme Court in 1933.

      4. Lmao oh the delicious whining of a “social1st” whose entire ideology is based on moral majority driven peer pressure. YUMMEee…! 😀

      5. go through a dangerous procedure to give birth

        When someone labels the only currently viable method for the continuation of our species as ‘a dangerous procedure’, there is not much point in continuing.

        They are not interested in rational debate.

        1. She probably has teeth in her vagina so she’s just being honest.

    3. Because she would be visibly pregnant for months and it would be hard to explain to the kids why they cannot keep the new baby? Because she would have to explain herself to everyone with a crack in their butt who saw her with the belly? Because perhaps her husband would not agree? Because pregnancy and labor 1. hurt and 2. are a threat to the woman´s health and possibly life? Because it may often be less emotionally painful to abort an early term pregnancy than to say goodbye to the baby after birth? Does not matter, it should be solely up to her.

      1. The last sentence is the only one that matters pre-viability.

        And post-viability, virtually all abortions are the consequence of a major medical complication in the pregnancy so only the woman and her doctor should be making medical decisions.

  7. “Let’s talk about the Elephant in the Womb”?!!

    That’s… a very interesting way of expressing your pro-abortion bona-fides.

  8. “I advised her that she could go to Oklahoma,” he says. “That’s a nine-hour drive one way. I explained we could help with the funding. She told me she couldn’t go even if we flew her in a private jet. ‘Who’s going to take care of my kids?’ she asked me. ‘What about my job? I can’t miss work.'”

    I’m pro abortion, but there was something sorely missing from this conversation. Like an “elephant in the womb”.

    1. I forgot the whole segment which might be more helpful for people to guess what might be missing from the conversation.

      He describes one 42-year-old patient who already has “four kids, three under 12,” but was too far along to qualify for a legal abortion in Texas. “I advised her that she could go to Oklahoma,” he says.

  9. What if nobody sues Braid — or if they wait until close to the statutory limit? What if somebody sues him, loses, and doesn’t appeal, so there’s no appellate opinion?

    1. Why can’t Dr. Braid sue himself and get paid the stautory amount plus legal fees?

      1. Could be the birth of a new business for him. He might have to doctor some records.

    2. Two pro-choice plaintiffs have sued him. It will be going to court.

  10. The right to kill and bear Children shall not be infringed.

    – No legal text, ever

    1. Roe slapped down the power (got that?) wielded by girl-bullying bigots to have goons point guns at doctors and women before the 100 days suggested by the 1972 + 1976 Libertarian Party platform. What it did was stop the initiation of force demanded by State versions of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Fugitive Slave Law was struck down by 13A, just as this Texas usurpation needs to be. There are Mohammedan countries with no bill of rights where religious conservatives gather at public squares to stone girls to death, so emigration is a solution for bigots, like travel to Mexico is for women in Texas.

  11. I am fairly certain they expected this law to be challenged. But by then Roe may be over given the current docket.

    Only took 50 years.

  12. I am still waiting on an explanation for why they are waiting for a lifer to take the bait, rather than finding some choicer to sue and then take a dive on appeal. That would be so much faster and easier for them, rather than hoping that some lifer will take the bait and then not drag it out ad nauseam.

    1. If by lifer you mean girl-bullying bigot, the answer is they are cowards. Robert Dear was the last one with guts. The rest hide behind fake names and beg cops and bailiffs to coerce girls and doctors.

  13. Here’s hoping Texas makes history by reaffirming the baby’s inalienable right to life.

    It will spread like wildfire around the world.

    1. I assume you shall be taking these children in Rob. Or passing a stronger social safety net yes?

      I mean, you couldn’t possibly be so hypocritical to care about the child while in the womb then proceed to not give a fuck once born right? Right?

  14. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what. We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!

  15. If you believe in the 2nd amendment. If you believe in a person’s right to protect themselves and their personal property. AND if you believe a fetus is a person?

    Then a woman has every right to protect herself and her life from that person via abortion.

    1. You can’t knock someone unconscious drag them onto your property then shoot them for trespassing before they wake up. The kids didn’t trespass. He came to reside in the woman’s body through no fault of his own, and in cases outside of rape, would not be there at all except for the actions the mother took knowing that there was an explicit risk that she would force another living being to reside in her womb.

      You can’t kill someone for being in a location that you put them and they have no means of leaving on their own, unless your life is in immediate (not theoretical) danger.

      1. This crop-destroying plague sockpuppet illustrates the hallucinatory effect of mystical brainwashing. A woman walks down the street and the hideous bigots imagine a kidnapping murder-plotting Jewess clearly in need of a Gestapo to make her toe the Positive Christianity line. They must be really proud of each other.

        1. JFC, you are retarded.

    2. Gotta be the dumbest hot take on abortion I’ve heard.

      1. Then you have not heard the one Bailey was using years ago, which went something like “The majority of embryos die of natural causes by failure to implant or miscarriage. Since Nature/God kills so many, therefore it is moral to deliberately kill them.”

        1. “Because so many adults die from natural causes, it must be morally permissible to kill adults for any reason.”

          Seems legit.

      2. Yours has to be the dumbest “non-argument” rebuttal I’ve ever heard.

        But hey, it’s resident dumbfuck buckleup so what do we expect.

    3. Goddamn, why are all of the pro-abortion takes so cringe and stupid.

      Just say that it’s better than the alternative of middle of the night no-knock raids because Mrs. Johnson down the street had a miscarriage and Nosy Nancy decided to report her.

  16. I wonder if any meth heads are willing to make a quick $10,000.

  17. Kinda disappointed that paleos so dominate the comments, at least on anything abortion related. Surely it’s not just Diane Reynolds and I who don’t think abortion should be outlawed?

    1. What do you think these paleos believe?

    2. What do you think these paleos believe?

    3. I think the moral status of the fetus at very early stages in pregnancy is ambiguous enough to give latitude for reasonable and moral people to honestly disagree.

    4. Rockwellian-Hoppean anarcho-reactionaries suck, and I’m a pro-life libertarian. You don’t have to be a paleolib or a paleocon to affirm fetal human rights.

      1. More accurate to say “concoct” rather than “affirm.”

        What social purpose is served by concocting fetal personhood rights? I explain below why expanding empathy alone isn’t sufficient to justify a new policy.

        And, obviously, any argument along the lines of “they should have rights because they should have rights” is inadequate.

        1. They should have rights because they are a distinctly separate human life, with distinct DNA, blood type, etc, and they have a beating heart, one of the oldest ways to determine if life is present.

          1. Life has a rather fuzzy definition, and anyway nobody’s proposing giving rights to bacteria, so we’ll stick with “rights-bearing person.”

            In order to grant rights to a fetus, which is an arbitrary choice we could make for whatever reason, we have to acknowledge the cost.

            It’s difficult for men to empathize with women on women-specific matters, so imagine that the state was empowered to force you to reproduce against your will. To require you to ejaculate into a cup to be inseminated in someone, and to require you to raise that child. Sound a little dystopian?

            You don’t even have to believe that this is exactly analogous to appreciate that there is some loss of rights for adult humans in the equation, and you should have to defend that part of it as well as the other part.

        2. The exchange between Tony and retiredfart is illustrative of how christian national socialist bullies can’t even hold their own against an admitted looter communist. By infiltrating the Libertarian Party they could drag it down the way they and the Klan did the Republicans, Wallace’s “‘Murrican” and the Aryan Nation’s “Tea” Party. Girl-bulliers cost the Republicans the election, and need to stick with their brood hosts to the death, like it says at the bottom of the Hitler Platform.

          1. If one’s exceptions to libertarianism involve forced birth and immigration restrictions, I start to suspect that one is less committed to an ideal of human liberty than to some other final solution.

    5. I don’t think it should be outlawed. I think men should be able to shirk all responsibility for that kid just like the woman can. Fair is fair. If it is her body her choice she should be on the hook for child support. His Money His Choice. Women can have unprotected sex and get pregnant and decide not to keep it. If men do the same they have no power. If she decides to have it he is on the hook for it.

      I’m not suggesting men be able to force women to get abortions. Rather that they should be able to similarly shirk all responsibility for the kid just like momma can. This would involve signing away all duties and privileges. So no visitation rights, but no requirement for child support either. And if momma can’t afford to raise the kid on just her own salary? Perhaps it is a sign she isn’t ready to be a parent.

      It can’t be that when it comes to snuffing the thing out it is mommas choice and responsibility, but when it comes taking care of it…suddenly now the man has to be involved. It’s not consistent.

      And likewise, if abortion isn’t murder then there can never ever be another instance in this country of a pregnant woman getting assaulted, losing the baby, and the perpetrator being charged with murder. We will Not be saying momma can kill it but nobody else can.

      1. “We Nationalize People” –Positive Christian National Socialist slogan, 1932-1945

      2. The rape thing is interestingly complex, and I would suggest that society can very well decide that killing a pregnant woman is worse than killing a non-pregnant woman if it wants to, even without also banning abortion. We make all sorts of arcane distinctions when it comes to murder. It’s all based on a theory of free will that I find potentially untenable, for example.

        I think the point is privacy. The state has an interest in the welfare of a child but not in whether an adult man or woman chooses to reproduce. It’s really a principle of limited government, that’s all.

  18. If the law is no good,” he said, “why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it’s garbage?”

    If this guy appeals to a federal court they should dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction since there’s no actual “controversy”; he’s on the same side as the guy he’s suing.

  19. There are times when it is misguided to extend the human “bubble of empathy” to new frontiers. It would be absurd and morally condemnable to put the welfare of the spotted owl above that of people, for example.

    I’ve heard it argued that the tech bro community is making this kind of mistake by extending the bubble of empathy to “AI.” When of course, we could simply choose not to treat robots as deserving of rights. We make them. What would we be doing it for? What human interest does it serve?

    It’s not necessarily a complete argument to say that a fetus never had any rights before, so why should we start giving them now? But it is the question we have to ask. Giving fetuses rights at the expense of the rights of living adult women is, for understandable reasons, a horror to many people. Some kind of sick sci-fi lunacy.

    Just not to incels and volcels of the religious persusasion, who have a hard time extending empathy to types of adults they so rarely encounter.

    1. Referring to the Muslim incels convinced they will get 72 virgins in heaven right?

      1. Many Muslim communities outside the US are even worse for women’s rights than the American Christian one, if you can believe it.

  20. No doubt this doctor considers himself stunning and brave for this. Of course the reality is he is just thirsty for attention. Same with the people suing him while claiming they disagree with the law. Thirsty as he’ll. Just tattoo “pay attention to me!” on their foreheads.

    1. Thirsty as *hell

      Seriously get an edit or delete feature.

    2. Sgt Rock here is suffering from Manson-tattoo envy.

  21. This isn’t going to work until Planned Parenthood and other pro abortion organizations get together a big war chest and start both providing a lot of post-six-week abortions and being ready to defend anyone who is eventually sued.

  22. ‘member when Reason was against Congress delegating their legislating powers to the SC?

    1. Counterfeit lies. Reason is like Robert Heinlein, who suggested a bicameral Congress half of which had to garner a 2/3 majority to foist some law on the people, and the other half of which labored only to repeal laws with a bare majority. The Court by 2 to 1 slapped down the Comstock law, thereby preventing bigots from sending goons with guns to coerce doctors and women. The TX law also resembles the Fugitive Slave Act which used bounty-hunters to chase Eliza from ice-floe to ice-floe till she hopped safely across the river into Mexico Ohio. This is a 13th-Amendment case, bigger’n Dallas.

  23. I don’t know Texas law, but neither of these suits would survive in federal court.

    Because neither is adversarial. In both cases both the defendant and plaintiff think they don’t/shouldn’t have a claim.

    If Texas has a similar requirement, then neither of these cases is ultimately going to present the constitutionality of the Texas law for decision.

  24. I OBJECT! The author’s assumption of argument is disqualifying, Whether or not the woman ‘knows’ she is pregnant, is immaterial to the subject.

    Life, that essence which makes inviolable; you know, free to choose; or free from the concern of having your brains sucked out, is not dependent upon any other thing than, than your existence, That’s what makes us libertarians, right?

    When is a person imbued with that dignity? Where do you cut the Gordian knot?

    1. You can’t base an entire movement on a bit of question begging. The argument can be distilled to a choice:

      Do we grant fetuses the rights that children enjoy, and are we willing to pay the cost in rights to adults?

      In the absence of some religious nonsense, you’d think this would be an easy choice, given that only the adults in that equation can vote.

  25. Another excellent article by Sullum. Only thing missing is the replay aspect. Dr Henry Morgentaler defied Comstockism even before the Libertarian Party. In 1968 he opened a clinic in Canada in defiance of papist and protestant coercion. He was raided in 1970, just as he had been arrested under nazi occupation in Europe. The LP formed the next year and demanded hands off of women and doctors for at least the first 100 days. Morgentaler was acquitted, but jury acquittal was nullified even after the Supreme Court smacked down girl-bullying stateside. In 1976 the American Prohibition Party, aped by the GOP, demanded a new Prohibition Amendment—this one to coerce doctors and women. That same year the bulliers ordered a retrial and Morgentaler won again, and the Quebec Party beat the bulliers in elections and dropped all charges. There are no abortion laws in Canada, a nicer place to live than most Republican States. Search: “Canadian Liberals and American Libertarians” or https://tinyurl.com/y8xzttkr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.