What the Deanda case shows us about the fight against birth control.
Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, progressive commentators have worried about whether the right to contraception will be in jeopardy next. Republicans largely dismiss these arguments as political fearmongering: There is no mass movement against contraception equivalent to the anti-abortion movement, they argue, and Republicans in some states have actually pushed expanded access to contraception.
But the concerns about birth control’s fate don’t seem so far-fetched anymore. Last week, the 5thCircuit Court of Appeals handed a major victory to Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who has masterminded many of the key post-Dobbs anti-abortion strategies, in a case on birth control that offers a chilling sign of things to come. As I write with Naomi Cahn and Maxine Eichner in an article forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review, conservatives have used arguments about parental rights to attack actions pertaining to school programs on race, sexuality, and gender identity—and to limit travel for abortion. Now, Mitchell is hoping to use a similar strategy to start undermining access to contraception.
The case involves Alexander Deanda, a conservative Christian father angry that the Title X family planning program theoretically allowed his three daughters to confidentially access contraceptive services before turning 18. Since it passed in 1970, Title X has ensured all patients, including minors, access to confidential care, recognizing that this guarantee can affect minors’ choices. Deanda, who did not like this prospect, complained about how the Biden administration was administering Title X, saying it violated his right under both Texas law and the U.S. Constitution to stop his underage daughters from getting birth control without his consent.
AdvertisementThere were two problems with his arguments. The first was that Deanda was looking for a reason to be in court rather than suffering a real injury. He admitted that none of his children had obtained or even tried to get birth control without his consent.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThat was no problem for the 5th Circuit, which reasoned that the Biden administration’s administration of Title X “obliterated” Deanda’s rightto consent, even if there was no realistic chance that his daughters were ever going to seek out birth control services in the first place.
This is no surprise. The 5thCircuit has accepted strikingly weak arguments about standing before, including in the abortion pill case, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, that is being argued before the Supreme Court later this month. There, the 5thCircuit saw no problem with standing when a group of anti-abortion doctors argued merely that they mayhave to treat patients with complications from the abortion pill mifepristone. The three-judge panel in Deanda reached a similar conclusion.
AdvertisementThe Biden administration had a response: Even if the Texas family code recognizes a right for parents to consent to their children’s medical treatment, federal law still trumps state law. Not so, said the 5thCircuit, which reinvented the Texas statute to allow states to requireparental consent. No matter that this contradicts an earlier ruling by Robert Bork, a conservative hero in Federalist Society circles. It also opens the door to numerous other state policies mandating that minors get their parents’ approval before accessing birth control. And while the 5thCircuit did not reach a firm conclusion on Deanda’s constitutional claims, it was not hard to see that the court was sympathetic to his broader demands. Deanda’s “right to exercise his Christian belief that his children should abstain from premarital sex,” the court wrote, was part of “our enduring American tradition.”
AdvertisementRelated From Slate
Christina Cauterucci
Birth Control Is Next
Read MorePopular in News & Politics
- The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
- You Don’t Want to Know How It’s Going Between Trump’s Lawyers and the Judge Presiding Over His Criminal Case
- Prosecutors Are Finally Revealing Their Strategy Against Trump
Deanda is just the start of new efforts to roll back contraceptive access, and these efforts are borrowing from a familiar playbook. Activists and attorneys like Mitchell have already experimented with laws that purport to protect minors from “abortion trafficking” when others assist minors in traveling out of state—or “grooming” when school sex education programs teach anything about sexual orientation or gender identity—while suggesting that minors need protection for a reason: abortion is actually dangerous, for example, or being gay or transgender is undesirable. With birth control, conservatives have drawn on the same playbook to argue that contraceptives are dangerous to minors, increasing their risk of cancer or depression, and that parents have a reason to be concerned about their children beyond a belief that premarital sex is wrong.
Advertisement AdvertisementRepublicans are probably right that states won’t pass direct bans on birth control in the near future, or that anyone will pursue an immediate challenge to the right to contraception recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut. But there may be no need for such a move when some conservatives already insist that drugs commonly marketed as contraceptives, such as the morning-after pill, IUDs, and even the birth control pill, are in fact abortifacients.
But Deanda shows that there is a playbook already in place to limit access to contraception for minors and to stigmatize it as unsafe as well as immoral. Deanda’s argument tells us a lot about what is driving part of this campaign: hostility to sex outside of marriage, for adults as much as for minors. It is only when children’s rights are involved, however, that we are currently hearing the quiet part said out loud.
Tweet Share Share Comment- ·The Analog Embrace: How Some Experiences Are Surviving the Digital Age
- ·鍖楁柟鏈変匠闊斥€斺€旂惔宀涘叓楠忓鍝嶆繁鍦砡涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- ·中铁三局青岛地铁5号线项目部举办“携手共创促和谐 警企共建创和谐”党建联建活动
- ·“金腰带”试运行指日可待!青岛地铁4号线通过项目工程验收
- ·Police bust crypto scammer who received plastic surgery to evade arrest
- ·捐树有着数!认捐雷高一棵树,一大波门票活动福利等你来!
- ·闈掑矝宸ヨ鏁板瓧鏅儬璧嬭兘绉戝垱浼佷笟楂樿川閲忓彂灞昣涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- ·买商品房可用购房券!城阳真金白银留人才,最低可申领8万元
- ·Klarna CEO reveals plan to reduce workforce by 50% and replace it with AI
- ·聚焦财税筹划,服务实体经济 青岛交行助力企业高质量发展
- ·GH爵士乐队将登陆凤凰之声大剧院
- ·“建设人民满意银行”系列报道——见义勇为灭火情 挺身而出显本色
- ·US Open 2024 livestream: How to watch US Open tennis for free
- ·“千熙之城杯” “乐在莱西” 第四届旅游摄影大赛开始征稿啦
- ·中国综艺嘉年华项目落户青岛 打造青岛综艺“样板间”
- ·“千万工程”经验要真学真用、活学活用、善学善用丨一号文件系列评①
- ·Best CPU Deals, AMD vs Intel: Holiday CPU Buying Guide
- ·聚好看大屏剁手大数据出炉 青岛长沙宁波冲进前三
- ·出入公共场所不能忘扫“场所码”
- ·青岛市市北区妈祖文化交流协会成立大会举行
- ·Carbon neutrality law violates basic rights: Constitutional Court
- ·青岛西海岸新区东方影都:剧组春节“不打烊”,服务保障准备足
- ·文教新城产学研中心建设有序推进
- ·首创“四连冠”!招行再度荣膺《欧洲货币》“中国最佳银行”大奖
- ·How much for Oasis tickets? Fans joke about splurging on reunion shows
- ·青岛工行情系乡村振兴 创新推出“粮食贷”