Right-wing judge makes the inevitable move against birth control rights
Laura Clawson, Daily Kos Staff
We warned you this was coming. The same crowd that said Republicans and their judges wouldn’t really overturn Roe v. Wade have dismissed the idea that Republicans and their judges would follow up Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization by coming for birth control next, but here it is.
Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, recently released an opinion that “the Title X program violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.”
Title X is a federal family planning program that
provides services including contraceptives, pregnancy testing, testing for
sexually transmitted infections, infertility help, and more. It offers services
to adolescents as well as adults—and that’s where the right-wing challenge, and
Kacsmaryk’s decision, comes in.
Alexander Deanda, the plaintiff in Deanda v. Becerra, is “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” so he’s arguing that the availability of federally funded family planning services tramples on his rights as a father to control his daughters’ sexuality.
And Kacsmaryk bought that argument, despite a ton of
legal precedent to the contrary, because Kacsmaryk himself is a warrior for
that kind of right-wing policing of female bodies and sexuality.
RELATED
STORY: Here’s a wake-up call for the
country: 195 House Republicans want to end right to birth control
The Deanda plaintiff is trying to shut down all Title X funding to providers that don’t require parental consent before offering care to people under 18 years old.
Kacsmaryk
hasn’t gone quite that far yet—he hasn’t issued an injunction blocking Title X
funding—but he’s asked the parties to the case to submit their plans for what
should happen next, and the plaintiff’s lawyers have made clear that he
wants Kacsmaryk to prohibit the federal government from “funding any
family-planning project in the United States that fails to obtain parental
consent before distributing prescription contraception or other family-planning
services to minors.”
Vox’s Ian Millhiser lays out a litany of problems with Kacsmaryk’s decision here, starting with standing: Deanda is trying to block funding on the argument that his daughters might someday, maybe, possibly seek out these services, knowing they would never get their father’s permission.
But since the Supreme Court just heard a case in which a web
designer claimed she was being oppressed because of the possibility that if she
ever started designing wedding websites, she might be subject to
anti-discrimination policies preventing her from refusing to work with LGBTQ
couples, “my daughters might someday do something I disapprove of” no
longer looks so far-fetched as a legal argument.
That’s
not the only giant legal hole Millhiser identifies in Deanda’s argument.
Kacsmaryk leans on a Texas state law about parental consent for medical care,
Millhiser notes, even though this is a federal case about a federal program, so
state law isn’t in control here. And there have been cases stretching back
decades that have established that this kind of program is
constitutional.
In parental rights cases centering on other issues, “’the state was either requiring or prohibiting some activity’—that is, the government used its coercive power to either require a child to take an action their parents did not like, or forbid the child from taking an action their parents wanted the child to take,”
Millhiser writes. But “A program like Title X cannot violate this rule against coercion because there is nothing coercive about it. The federal government provides grants to health providers who voluntarily offer family planning services to their patients.
And those providers, in turn, offer their
services to patients who voluntarily seek out contraceptive care. No one is
required to receive reproductive health care services funded by Title X.”
This is a really, really weak case, in other words. There’s a decent chance that, if Kacsmaryk goes ahead and tries to block Title X funding, he will be overturned at the appellate level, even given that the case would be appealed to the very conservative Fifth Circuit.
Even the Trump-McConnell Supreme Court might not be
willing to go this far yet. But either way, Kacsmaryk could at least
temporarily mess up a vitally important health care program. And he’s
showing that, yes, the right-wing legal movement, up to and including a federal
judge, has its sights set on birth control rights.
RELATED
STORY:
Advocates say access to contraception
will be the next battleground