The state of Texas is on the receiving end of national backlash after its new anti-abortion law—the most restrictive in the nation—went into effect earlier this month.
Senate Bill 8, misleadingly known as the "Heartbeat Bill"—bans abortions after six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. What's more, it encourages Texans to report any neighbor they suspect received or even facilitated, in any way, an abortion after that period, promising a bounty of up to $10 thousand.
The six week ban is in blatant violation of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Waderuling, which found that abortion up to the point of fetal viability—around 24 weeks—is a constitutional right. Nevertheless, the conservative Supreme Court has refused to intervene on the matter.
President Joe Biden's Justice Department sued the state of Texas over the law, with Attorney General Merrick Garland saying:
"The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent. The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights."
The Department also slammed Texas for deputizing its own citizens by relying on their reports and promising bounties for viable ones, instead of deferring enforcement to the Executive Branch.
Now, the Lone Star State's defense of the law is garnering even more backlash for grasping at straws.
In a new court filing, Texas argues DOJ can't sue over SB8 in part because the law is "stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel" as women have to leave the state to obtain abortions. \n\nDoc: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1146510/gov.uscourts.txwd.1146510.43.0.pdf\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/lgU906MbfD— Jacqueline Thomsen (@Jacqueline Thomsen) 1632926748
In response to one of the Justice Department's arguments—that the bill affects interstate commerce—Texas countered that S.B. 8 stimulates interstate commerce by forcing Texans to leave the state to secure an abortion.
The filing reads:
"In this case, the federal government does not bring a commerce claim, nor does it cite any actual evidence that the Texas Heartbeat Act burdens interstate commerce. ... What evidence that does exist in the record suggests that, if anything, the Act is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel. "
People were stunned at the defense.
This argument isn't just appalling, it's also self-defeating. They're essentially conceding an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that's required.https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Max Kennerly (@Max Kennerly) 1632930693
This is like the old lawyer joke about the guy who kills his parents and then throws himself onto the mercy of the court because he\u2019s an orphan.https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Mad Scholar Strikes (@Mad Scholar Strikes) 1632949624
It will never cease to amaze me how much of my rights being preserved is contingent on how an unelected body reads the Commerce Clause.https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Ruth Sangree (@Ruth Sangree) 1632929538
I did not have Forcing people to travel out of state is good for business on my anti-abortion argument bingo card.https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Pretty Guardian Sailor Anoa \ud83d\udc95 (@Pretty Guardian Sailor Anoa \ud83d\udc95) 1632931027
Texans\u2019 constitutional right to abortion has been completely pummeled, but hey on the bright side interstate travel is downright ~stimulated~https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Lauren Kelley (@Lauren Kelley) 1632931031
\u201cWe are forcing people to leave the state to pursue healthcare\u201d is a hell of an argument to put in writinghttps://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Kendyl Hanks (@Kendyl Hanks) 1632953761
Some were left aghast.
This is some argument herehttps://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Michael Li \u674e\u4e4b\u6a38 (@Michael Li \u674e\u4e4b\u6a38) 1632936819
<reads that three times>https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Tal Kopan (@Tal Kopan) 1632927354
to use the professional lingo, wtfhttps://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774\u00a0\u2026— Elizabeth Joh (@Elizabeth Joh) 1632931273
It's unclear how the Supreme Court will toss out decades' of Roe v. Wade precedent, but given its conservative majority, some are fearing the worst.
@FlavorFlav/X
@jeffgoldesq/X
@AaronParseghian/X