Texas Attorney General Blocks Injunction, Will Keep Enforcing Anti-Abortion Law
For now, doctors who end pregnancies when a woman’s life is at risk can still be prosecuted.

A Texas judge issued a temporary injunction against the state's abortion ban on Friday, which exempted doctors from prosecution for abortions performed when pregnancy complications risked the mother's life or health, or when there were fetal abnormalities.
However, this injunction was itself blocked just hours later by an appeal from the state attorney general, leaving a final decision on the case to the Texas Supreme Court.
Travis County District Court Judge Jessica Mangrum issued an injunction against the law as part of a ruling in Zurawski v. State of Texas, a lawsuit brought by five Texas women who claim that they were denied medically necessary abortions due to unclear language in the state's abortion ban that left doctors unsure if they could legally provide an abortion.
According to the lawsuit, two plaintiffs experienced severe complications from miscarriages that went untreated due to the ban. The three other plaintiffs had fetuses with severe abnormalities that carried high risks of medical complications for the mother, like hemorrhaging.
Texas law currently bans almost all abortions, providing an exception only in the case of a "medical emergency," defined as a "life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed."
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argue the law is too vague, leading doctors to deny them abortions—placing the women at risk—due to concerns that the women were not in sufficiently imminent danger of death for doctors to risk possible prosecution if they performed an abortion. Under the law, doctors who perform illegal abortions face life in prison.
"With the threat of losing their medical licenses, fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and up to 99 years in prison lingering over their heads," the suit states, "it is no wonder that doctors and hospitals are turning patients away—even patients in medical emergencies."
On Friday, Mangrum issued a temporary injunction, pending a final ruling on the case, against the portion of the state's abortion ban pertaining to medical emergencies.
"The Court finds that there is uncertainty regarding whether the medical exception to Texas's abortion bans . . . permits a physician to provide abortion care where, in the physician's good faith judgment and in consultation with the pregnant person, a pregnant person has a physical emergent medical condition," Mangrum wrote. "The Court further finds that any official's enforcement of Texas's abortion bans as applied to a pregnant person with an emergent medical condition for whom an abortion would prevent or alleviate a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility) would be inconsistent with the rights afforded to pregnant people under" the Texas Constitution.
Mangrum's ruling barred Texas from enforcing its abortion ban against doctors who provide abortions in cases where the patient has "a complication of pregnancy that poses a risk of infection or otherwise makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe for the pregnant person," "a condition exacerbated by pregnancy, that cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy, or that requires recurrent invasive intervention," or "a fetal condition where the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy and sustain life after birth."
However, less than a day after the injunction was issued, the attorney general's office appealed the decision directly to the state's supreme court, effectively blocking the injunction and keeping existing laws in effect until the justices issue a ruling.
"Texas pro-life laws are in full effect," said a press release from the attorney general's office on Saturday. "This judge's ruling is not."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Texas is now vying with Oklahoma and Idaho for most fanatical!
Oklahoma now vying with Idaho for most fanatical!
https://news.yahoo.com/woman-cancerous-pregnancy-told-wait-215500885.html
Woman with Cancerous Pregnancy Was Told to Wait in Parking Lot Until She Was 'Crashing'
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/molar-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20375175
From there, we see that MOLAR PREGNANCIES ARE NEVER VIABLE!!! Yet fascist assholes like the Rethugglican Church want to endanger women in the Sacred Name of Unique Human DNA, which is present in a womb-slave!
From the listed source…
There are two types of molar pregnancy — complete molar pregnancy and partial molar pregnancy. In a complete molar pregnancy, the placental tissue swells and appears to form fluid-filled cysts. There is no fetus.
In a partial molar pregnancy, the placenta might have both regular and irregular tissue. There may be a fetus, but the fetus can’t survive. The fetus usually is miscarried early in the pregnancy.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851775/oklahoma-woman-abortion-ban-study-shows-confusion-at-hospitals another take on the same case...
I’m making over $13,000 a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
.
.
For details visit————————>> https://FinancialMainstay.blogspot.com
Looks more like activist doctors are deliberately endangering women to force the issue. If they're refusing to treat miscarriages that have happened through no action of their own that's on them, not the law.
And as Reason likes to argue in free speech cases they don't like, the abortionist doctors have not been chilled or restricted yet because they have not yet been fined/arrested.
I honestly cannot comprehend how or why Texans put up with Ken Paxton's bullshit. A crook who has weaseled his way out of confronting his blatant corruption, the voters opted to re-elect the wonky-eyed scumbag and just smile as he forces doctors to make decisions diametrically opposed to their own Hippocratic Oaths.
Texas is winning the race toward Teminal Stupidity.
Really? How is he doing that?
Bullshit. Faced with a state government willing to pass such an extreme law, doctors have every reason to believe that prosecutors are going to second guess their judgment. Expecting them to risk losing their license or even going to prison assumes that doctors are saints and martyrs, which is just a little much to ask. Even if charges are dropped or a jury acquits them it's still going to leave them with a mountain of legal bills and a highly uncertain professional future.
The idea that bad laws shouldn't be challenged until they've actually been abused is further bullshit. The idea that doctors' speech and action hasn't been chilled until they're arrested is just stupid. I'm trying to think of a case where Reason made any argument remotely like that. After considerable thought, I can only assume you're arguing with the voices in your head as usual.
Texas law currently bans almost all abortions, providing an exception only in the case of a "medical emergency," defined as a "life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed."
This is why we license doctors so that they are known to be qualified to make such a decision. This is more a case of activists trying to muddy the waters.
And do you want POLITICIANS to decide, instead of moms and their doctors? Speaking of clueless politicians, see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/23/idaho-republican-anti-abortion-swallow-camera , “Anti-abortion lawmaker gets anatomy lesson – women cannot swallow camera for exam.” (“Pill-cam”). It seems Idaho representative Vito Barbieri wasn’t listening in the third grade, when another student asked the teacher, “If babies come from mommy’s tummy, how come they don’t get digested?” And he’s not done ANY even vaguely serious studying of health matters since then, either! This clearly shows the UTTER medical ignorance of many power-hungry politicians, who would STILL over-regulate medicine, in order to pander to fanatics! Ignorance for the win, over decency, humility, and self-restraint!
Sqrlsy, do the letters F O mean anything to you?
It's better to just spamflag your shit.
You're a fucking brainless nincompoop who thinks whatever the fascist Rethugglican Church tells you to think, and couldn't give ONE single hoot in Hell about facts or logic! Fuck off to Hell where you belong, if you keep right on wanting to tell others what to do, while knowing NOTHING!
I really don't give a damn about any church, and I have objections based in scientific research to abortion.
QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”
I wish religious fruitcakaes would take a step out of their wee desert burgs and trek all the way out past WalMart to get a look at some of the rest of the big wide world. Provincial xenophobia mixed with resentment and proud ignorance leave nothing but Biblical mumbo jumbo on which to base their opinions. It's easier to say "God wants it" than it is to think critically and consider nuance. Nuance is hard. "Whatever Pastor Bob says" is easier. When you're lazy and ignorant, easy wins every time.
Abortion is infanticide. Case closed.
And before you start whining about religion, let’s be clear. I am agnostic.
Care to revise your statement?
More lovelies from Republican politicians: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/politicians-learned-anything-since-clayton-williamss-campfire-rape-joke/ “Bad weather is like rape, he (Clayton Williams) said; “if it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” And “raped women can’t get pregnant”, they say! https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/idaho-lawmaker-still-thinks-rape-cant-result-pregnancy-and-its-2016/ “Nielson’s comments echoed those of former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who once memorably said on a television interview, ‘If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.’”
Republican “facts” and “logic” summarized: Abortion-prohibiting laws will need NO exceptions for rape, because raped women don’t get pregnant! If raped women DO get preggers, it MUST mean that they ENJOYED it, so it wasn’t REALLY rape, then, was it?
no... this is activist politicans playing doctor and virue signalling to radical religious groups. A majority of Americans (and Texans) think that abortion should be an option in limited circumstances. Doctors should be the ones making these decisions.
You really are determined to live up to your handle. The law is vague and overly broad. Prosecutors can easily use it to second guess doctors' judgment. Given the political climate, it's perfectly reasonable for doctors to assume they will. It's completely unreasonable to expect doctors to volunteer to be test cases to see just how restrictive the law will be as applied. Would you be at the front of the line knowing that you could lose your livelihood and possibly go to prison? Knowing that even if the charges are dropped or a jury acquits you're still going to be facing a mountain of legal bills and quite possibly a damaged or destroyed career? Yeah, didn't think so.
The only ones muddying the water are the people making ludicrous arguments like yours. If you can argue with a straight face that ambitious, trigger-happy prosecutors will never, ever second guess doctors' decisions, then you're even dumber than I think you are.
I’m not making any statement on whether abortion should be legal or not or when it should be, but this:
in the case of a "medical emergency," defined as a "life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed."
Is no where near vague and if it was certified by a licensed physician that should be the end of the discussion.
Seems to clearly state that the judgement is to be made by physicians. I'm not seeing the vagueness or ambiguity either. Nor any mechanism to challenge a doctor's judgement.
Do you really believe for one second that prosecutors won't use this law to try to second guess doctors' judgment? If you do, please tell the Tooth Fairy I said "hi".
Not the end of the discussion as there are activist physicians that would classify the anxiety of being pregnant as qualifying if not checked periodically. But, in any case close to being actually life threatening then a fair amount of latitude should be given to the professional judgement.
Yes, it should be left to the professional judgment of doctors. If you actually believe it will be, then you should really take a look at this bridge I have for sale.
Well, it is slightly less clear than "shall not be infringed", and look what they have been doing with that.
This is exactly how bad laws stay on the books: the government makes it difficult, dangerous and expensive to challenge them. See the Heller case for just one example. Most people don't have the resources to challenge the law, and activist groups aren't willing to get involved until they can find a highly sympathetic plaintiff.
And Texas is prosecuting anyway.
Are they?
Odd that there were no examples of this happening in either the lawsuit or the article about how it would be theoretically possible. I mean, if Texas was actively prosecuting anyone for this, you would think someone would have at least brought it up.
That's because doctors are refusing to perform procedures that might be even a tiny bit questionable. They either very quietly refer them to go out of state or else wait until the woman is very obviously deathly ill. Given just how much they have to lose, it's hardly surprising that doctors aren't exactly lining up to serve as test cases to see just what the precise limits of the law are.
It would be difficult to make it any more vague. "Life Threatening" means almost nothing. An ectopic pregnancy is life threatening, yet a member of the Texas legislature actually proposed surgically removing the fertilized egg from a woman's fallopian tube and implanting it into her uterus as an alternative to simply flushing out the nonviable threat. There are already no shortage of 1st hand accounts of women with sepsis being denied an abortion when it is a literal emergency. Who the fuck do these people think they are that they can compel free citizens to carry around non-viable, life threatening pregnancies because "the threat isn't real enough"? Who the fuck are these people who force doctors to ignore the pleas of their ill patients in direct contradiction to their own Hippocratic oaths? I used to think it was hyperbolic for people on the left to claim "the cruelty is the point", but there really doesn't seem like there is any other motivating thought behind these laws.
Never mind that a free society should never be bound by one zany religion's interpretation of a book that means nothing to a large percentage of them. Religious laws should be for religious people to choose to obey. Religion has no role in decent, civilized society. Keep that shit locked up and away from public view!
It's not even really a religious tradition. For most of history, feticide was only a crime once the fetus had "quickened" ie the mother could feel the child moving in the womb. This is roughly, albeit not exactly, analogous to the modern concept of viability. The idea that a fertilized egg is a legal person with rights that can supersede those of the woman expected to gestate it is strictly a modern conceit.
Early term abortions were not considered criminal under the English Common Law at the time the US was founded. Since ECL formed the foundation of American law it's not at all far-fetched to argue that such procedures were traditionally protected. Bodily autonomy and integrity are rights well established under Anglo-American law and formally recognized as far bag as the Magna Carta. This should have been the basis for Roe instead of vague blathering about emanations from penumbras.
Does a "Doc, abort my fetus or I will kill myself" threat count as something that "places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed"?
Who wrote the headlines?
Attorney generals do not block injunctions; courts do.
From the article:
"However, less than a day after the injunction was issued, the attorney general's office appealed the decision directly to the state's supreme court, effectively blocking the injunction and keeping existing laws in effect until the justices issue a ruling."
Also from the article:
"With the threat of losing their medical licenses, fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and up to 99 years in prison lingering over their heads," the suit states, "it is no wonder that doctors and hospitals are turning patients away—even patients in medical emergencies."
Are YOU ready to stake YOUR medical license, and 99 years in jail, trusting politicians and judges and attorney generals to agree with your VAST and AWESOME understanding of the fine points of the law, here? Maybe ponder this: Abortion decisions could INSTEAD be left to women and their doctors, and ALL of the smugly self-righteous busy-bodies could just FUCK RIGHT THE HELL OFF!
I thought you liked democracy.
I like democracy in its place. Shall we ask democracy what to eat for breakfast, who to marry, where to live, and what jobs to accept and reject? Asking democracy to turn women into womb-slaves makes NO sense at ALL, to me, as a "mind your own business" kind of a guy!
The Constitution does not protect reproductive rights. See Buck v. Bell.
I’m afraid that SQRLSY will subdivide like an amoeba. We should dump bleach on it just to make sure that doesn’t happen. Or preferably lye.
You're using a horrible decision that sanctioned forced sterilization to defend your position on forced pregnancy? A decision that has since been effectively overturned at that? Yeesh, Elmer and ITL got nothing on you.
The attorney general appealed the injucntion.
It was a court who blocked it.
If the attorney general had NOT appealed the "injucntion", doctors would now be at least SLIGHTLY more free to practice medicine in Texas, as THEY see fit, WITHOUT Buttinskies, Nosenheimers, Karens, Judges, Lawyers, paper-pushers, and OTHER endless armies of assorted assholes looking over their shoulders, threatening them with losses of their licenses, and 99 years in jail! Thanks, attorNUT general asshole!!!
Yeah, the headline could have been phrased a little better. What's your point? It doesn't make the law or the decision any less awful.
Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b), an interlocutory appeal of a trial court's injunction operates to stay the injunction unless it arises under Family Law Code, and this does not arise under Texas Family Law Code. AG didn't stay it. Trial Court Judge didn't stay it. Texas Supreme Court didn't stay it. Texas legislature, effectively, is responsible for the stay by its enactment of the statute that makes the stay automatic pending interlocutory appeal.
Medically speaking that law is about as vague as 'live birth', and 'cause of death' - both of which generate documents e.g. birth and death certificates. You'd think doctors would welcome a law that tells them what they are required to do, in plain English that a 12 year old could understand.
“You’d think doctors would welcome a law that tells them what they are required to do”
Why would any doctor ever welcome politicians and lawyers looking over their shoulder when they are doing their job?
Why would even a trash truck driver or a dishwasher welcome politicians and lawyers looking over their shoulder when they are doing their job?
Spoken by someone who has never produced anything in corporate America.
If your government tells you that you must do ________________, you are released from liability. Your risk analysis drops when the something is mandated. Look at corporate Covid policies. None of the policies (shots, masks, distancing, surface sanitizing) worked, but companies were not liable for the failed policies.
Spoken by someone who has never produced anything in corporate America.
Me? I worked at two very well-known software corporations. And helped produce a product that you and probably ever other commenter here has used.
Why do Marxists like you continually impose these rules on everyone else, where the life of a baby isn’t in question?
The fact that this law gives prosecutors plenty of room to second guess doctors' judgment is precisely why they're challenging it. If you think there are clear and universal definitions of "live birth" and "cause of death" then you don't have a clue.
The wording of that law looks very similar to the self-defense laws in place all over the country. It wouldn't surprise me if that's deliberate, so they can use that similarity as a defense against charges of vagueness.
I'm also rather suspicious of the doctors who refused to perform medically necessary abortions out of supposed concern over the alleged vagueness of the law. None of them knew _any_ other doctors who were willing to perform the procedure? I suspect that they actually refused in order to generate a legal challenge. If that's true, then either they were lying about the medical necessity, or else they were deliberately endangering their patients for political reasons.
If a prosecutor actually threatened prosecution, it would be all over the news!
Hey, here's an unjust law! But challenging it could cost you your livelihood and possibly land you in prison. Even if your challenge is successful, it's going to cost you a fortune and may still destroy your career. So, are you going to be first in line to test the limits?
As for self-defense laws, those don't stop prosecutors from pursuing highly questionable cases and pressuring even defendants with solid cases to cop pleas. Give me one good reason to think that this will be any different.
Savita Halappanavar died in 2012 in Ireland because of laws that tie doctors' hands in treating women with pregnancy complications. It will happen in this country too, if laws like those in Texas are allowed to stand. Pregnancy is more than just a social condition and it requires proper medical care.
Assuming that is even really true, or actually comparable, how far did you have to look to dig out that little nugget?
Not too damn far. Anyone with a search engine can readily find other cases in countries with extreme restrictions. I would offer you a quarter so you can buy a clue, but I already know you don't want one.
"Right to life, your name's a lie.
You don't care if women die."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
But surely that cannot happen here?
Yes, it can. In Phoenix AZ in 2009, a Catholic doctor was excommunicated for saving the life of a woman with a deadly pregnancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride
The champion of Kermit Gosnell and Margaret Sanger has arrived.
Congrats. As bad as M4E's argument was, you doubled down in worse fashion. Whether a doctor performs an abortion or not, regulating whom the Church can and cannot excommunicate for virtually *any* reason is a rock-solid 1A violation even on strict (non-)libertarian precepts of free speech and free association.
You are correct that the excommunication of a member is a churches 1A right. What you missed was how despicable was the act of excommunication. A Catholic nun supported the only decision that could have been made and she was made to pay for that. She made a decision to save a woman, a mother of three and a wife. The bishops who excommunicated her were within their rights, but should still be viewed as the low lives they are for their actions.
What you missed was how despicable was the act of excommunication.
It's only despicable if you consider her membership in The Church venerable to begin with. Even at that, legally, it's a non sequitur unless you're advocating for a state-backed religion.
He is advocating for a state back religion. The church of progressive orthodoxy. With the Democrat party as their delivery system.
We already know you're an obtuse idiot, you can stop trying to prove it. Someone who actually took holy orders as a nun clearly regards their status with the Catholic Church as very important to them. I claim no authority over the bishops' decision, and I see zero sign that M4e does either. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree with and criticize that decision.
Anyone claiming any sort of libertarian beliefs shouldn't find that distinction confusing. You, I and everyone else is free to dislike other people's behavior as much as they want, but we're only justified in urging state action to prevent or punish that behavior if we can demonstrate that it's harming us. By the same logic, the fact that a given activity is legal doesn't mean we're somehow forbidden to criticize it. If you can't see the difference between expressing an opinion and advocating for state regulation of religion then you're even dumber than I think you are.
Good.
More states need to ignore federal rulings and enforce laws that piss off leftists.
Get them the hell out by any means possible.
Preemption for thee, State sovereignty for me!
Yeah, that's gonna work out great. Let's just let states run roughshod over any right they don't like. If that means gun owners in blue states get marched off to re-education camps that's a small price to pay!
Travis County District Court Judge Jessica Mangrum issued an injunction against the law…
What the hell! Why are they allowing women judges to rule on such matters!
This is what happens when we STOP keeping them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, where they belong, making sandwiches and cookies for us!
It's the 2020s, White Knight, not the 1320s.
Those are nonsense, words and numbers for him. It’s functionally illiterate, and probably can’t count past 10.
If you can't recognize sarcasm when it walks up and bites you in the ass then I don't think Mike is the idiot here.
If you can't recognize sarcasm when it walks up and bites you in the ass then I don't think Mike is the idiot here. Good job making SQRLSY the voice of reason.
Even back in 2013, a study to determine “why women seek abortion in the US” found that only 12 percent of women cited “health-related reasons” for their decision to abort.
In fact, this study found that the “most frequently mentioned theme” mothers referenced for ending the lives of their unborn children was related to finances.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/31/we-can-save-a-womans-life-without-ending-her-unborn-childs/
Clearly, this means that all anti-abortion fanatics should be voluntarily sending all of their LAST BLEEDING DIMES to pregnant women who want to abort for fear of family poverty! Now THAT would be "putting your money where your mouth is"!
And Texas won't even expand Medicaid to pay for the prenatal and postnatal care of the babies they pretend to care about.
The anti-abortion extremists have long since tipper their hand as a bunch of shameless liars. There's nothing "pro-life" about them.
If I recall the raw data correctly, over 80% were "no answer" or "no reason". Given that abortion is extremely personal and the more extreme the reason, the more invasive a stranger question it is, that effectively invalidates the survey.
You must be recalling some other study. The linked study has no such raw data.
Also, in light of the evidence presented, you're being generous in assuming the 80% wasn't fabricated out of thin air on the spot.
So it's okay to fuck over the one in eight who do have medical issues? I find it odd that someone who "longs to be free" is to eager to deny the freedom of others.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Guilt and culpability have very little to do with lawyers and the mockery of a justice system that we have here. Doctors have professional reputations, licensing, and the need to continue to put food on the table for their families. It is no wonder that they are turning towards cowardice to keep the gravy train rolling for their families. I don't blame them for not trusting the so called "courts" to do the right thing these days.
And of course you see advocating for murder if you're inconvenienced as the correct course here, right?
I do not relinquish control of my body to anybody nor government. I am no slave and will not tolerate being made into one. If I so choose to bear a child, I will do so of my own free will; if I choose at any time not to continue to do so, I will not be forced by any man, woman, nor government to do so against my will.
If I so choose to bear a child, I will do so of my own free will;
Unless you're a nematode, somebody else's "will" is going to be required.
nice article