We all know that elections have consequences. But not all consequences are as plain as this. As reported by Alexandria Gonzalez-Ramirez for New York Magazine:
A Texas man has sued three women, whom he accuses of murder, for allegedly helping his ex-wife terminate a pregnancy with abortion pills, in what appears to be the first case of its kind since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer.
A trio of overlapping abortion bans has made terminating a pregnancy illegal in Texas except in cases of certain medical emergencies (this doesn’t happen in practice; five women who were denied medically necessary abortions are now suing the state). According to the Texas Tribune, which first reported on the lawsuit, plaintiff Marcus Silva is suing the women under the state’s wrongful death statute. He’s represented by former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, the architect of the Texas law that allows residents to sue anyone they suspect of “aiding and abetting” an abortion.
RELATED STORY: As the nation braces for Texas judge to halt abortion pill use, pregnant people face deadly risks
According to Gonzalez-Ramirez’s report:
Silva alleges that his ex-wife learned she was pregnant in July 2022 and concealed it from him. Notably, court records show she had filed for divorce two months earlier, in May 2022, although it wasn’t finalized until February 2023. According to photos of his ex-wife’s purported text messages, which were included in the lawsuit, she told the defendants: “I know either way he will use it against me. If I told him before, which I’m not, he would use it as [a way to] try to stay with me. And after the fact, I know he will try to act like he has some right to the decision.”
But it’s not really important what this couple’s “situation” was. We can speculate, we can be judgmental, sympathetic, or salacious, depending on our preconceptions. But ultimately, whatever we or anyone else may “think,” it’s not really important what emotions, past history, or anything motivated these people in their relationship. Functional or dysfunctional, abusive or consensual, we just don’t know. Because frankly, it’s none of our business.
The only reality is that Silva’s “ex” did not believe it was in her best interests to become pregnant with this man’s child, and that her pregnancy was unintentional and unwanted. She wanted an abortion desperately, and she sought out her friends to help her get one. As reported by Eleanor Klibanoff for the Texas Tribune:
The friends texted with the woman, sending her information about Aid Access, an international group that provides abortion-inducing medication through the mail, the lawsuit alleges. Text messages filed as part of the complaint seem to show they instead found a way to acquire the medication in Houston, where the two women lived.
A third woman delivered the medication, the lawsuit alleges, and text messages indicate that the wife self-managed an abortion at home.
Silva obviously disagreed with his ex-wife’s decision. His motives may be malevolent, they may be heartfelt. They may, in his view, be “Christian” or what he thinks is “right,” or they may be just manifested out of pure malice and resentment against his ex. She may care for him, she may hate him, or she (as seems likely here) may never want to see him again.
Again, we don’t know. The point is, it doesn’t matter.
In states like Texas, subject to Republican anti-abortion laws, egged on by a Republican majority Supreme Court, it is the man—and only the man—who has the right of punishment. As Klibanoff reports, “The lawsuit alleges that assisting a self-managed abortion qualifies as murder under state law, which would allow Silva to sue under the wrongful death statute.” Yes, anyone with standing can presumably sue under the state’s wrongful death statute, but who exactly did they expect would bring the vast majority of these suits?
So, under Texas law, if the man wants whoever he has impregnated to give birth—whatever the circumstances, no matter how horrid or unintended—he can sue anyone who helps her terminate that unwanted pregnancy under the terroristic threat of that state’s criminal laws. Even to the point—as was done in this case—of holding them liable for the fetus’ “wrongful death.” And as Silva’s case demonstrates, he will have the full power of the state behind him. Texas, like other states, has stopped just short of criminally charging pregnant people who have an abortion, but men like Silva can see quite clearly see how the wind is blowing. His lawsuit reportedly seeks $1,000,000 in “damages.”
He has all the power, and the pregnant person has none. Backed by the imprimatur of the state, the purpose of the suit is intimidation, pure and simple, as called out by pro-choice organizations:
“This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need," Autumn Katz, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Friday in a statement. “The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them.”
So, yes, I would suggest that this is not a place Texas women, or anyone who becomes pregnant in that state, would want to be in. I would also suggest that this is not a place that any sane parent would want their want their kids to be in. In fact, I would expect them to be horrified at being put into this position.
And I’d suggest they use whatever power they have to vote out the people who made it possible.
Yes, elections have consequences. They can wreck peoples’ lives. And for anyone who votes Republican—in Texas or in any state dominated by Republicans who pass these types of misogynistic laws—this is an example of how terrifying those consequences can be.
RELATED STORY: South Carolina's newest 'Pro-life' bill would subject people getting abortions to the death penalty
