Using the Legal System to Fight For Life

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled the federal abortion law was unconstitutional in deciding the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Justice Samuel Alito from the majority wrote: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

After the decision, which brought the issue back to the states, the insidious abortion industry ramped up its efforts to codify abortion in many state constitutions, such as California. Texas, on the other hand, passed a law restricting abortion. Both of these states are at the heart of a recent lawsuit claiming the death of a baby was a wrongful death. California’s Supreme Court ruled the State’s Constitution allows for the right to abort a child.  Conversely, the State of Texas passed a law in 2021 commonly known as the heartbeat law, which prohibits abortions after the fetus has reached the age of six weeks.

A legal battle is brewing about the legality of pro-choice states sending abortion poison to another state through the mail. A Texas man, Jerry Rodriguez, is suing a California doctor, Remy Coeytaux, in an action claiming the doctor participated in the murder of his unborn child.

The plaintiff alleges his girlfriend and her ex-husband received from Coeytaux abortion inducing drugs on two separate occasions. The woman cannot be charged in Texas, but Coeytaux from California could be liable because he is not registered as a Texas doctor, which is a legal requirement.

The case above illustrates the problem where states like California, through agents like Coeytaux, are imposing their pro-choice agendas on areas that have legally curtailed abortions in their states. A similar situation occurred this past February, when the states of Louisiana and Texas sued a New York doctor who prescribed abortion pills via telemedicine to citizens of their states.

Through the present legal actions, pro-life states like Texas and Louisiana are exercising their right to self-govern, especially when it comes to the question of abortion.  Although the case between Rodriguez and Coeytaux does not explicitly include the State of Texas, the result will be the same. Roe vs Wade had negative ramifications for the nation for years. From this vantage point, it is almost inevitable that the question of the sovereignty of a state’s laws against another state holding a different view arises, which can only be answered by the Supreme Court.

If the argument against the plaintiffs uses language about civil rights, remember that everyone is free to live where they want.  For those individuals who are pro-abortion, there is no restriction on them moving to a place that legally supports their opinion. They could easily move to those areas if they deem the laws of the state they are in a burden. Because of this relocation option, none of their supposed rights are infringed.

The latest telemedicine angle to procure medically induced abortions is the newest way in which the pro-choice group seems to be headed. The lawsuits are welcome to stop or at least begin to hinder what appears to be a way to subvert the Dobbs decision, which sent the decision of abortion back to the individual states to decide. The legal battles may temporarily stop or slow down the practice of telemedicine due to the fear of a doctor being sued. Regardless, every life saved now is a plus, even if the plaintiffs do not win their cases. As mentioned, state sovereignty is almost a shoo-in case before the nine justices in Washington.  

Hopefully, this strategy will save some babies, but it certainly has added to the arrows in the pro-life quiver.