A Texas “wrongful death” case could radically alter the concept of reproductive choice if it makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Brittni Silva, Galveston, was not in a happy marriage with her husband, Marcus. According to a countersuit she filed, Marcus would regularly get drunk and verbally abuse her, including once having to be escorted from a work function while screaming gendered slurs at her. By 2022, she was divorcing him.
However, in July of that year, she had a positive pregnancy test. Brittni decided to terminate the pregnancy through a mail-order medical abortion, one of the few avenues of reproductive choice still available in Texas. Marcus found out about the test by rifling through her purse and looking through her phone.
Incensed, he sued her under Texas’s “abortion bounty” law, calling her a baby killer. The lawsuit also names two friends of Brittni’s who helped her research methods. Marcus is asking for $1 million in damages from all parties and demands full custody of their two children.
This is not the first time this has been tried. Two of the foundational cases of constitutionally protected abortion access, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, settled that pregnant people are not legally required to inform a partner of an abortion or answer to them if the pregnant person has one. When Roe fell, the precedents still stand. The person who isn’t pregnant does not get veto power.
That doesn’t mean it will continue to stand. The Texas bounty law is an ingenious attempt to restrict abortion without the state enforcing it. While much of that was rendered moot after Roe was overturned, the ability to sue for aiding or having an abortion remains on the books. So far, it’s not held up in legal cases, but its constitutionality is far from settled.
On reason it’s still a very active concern is Jonath Mitchell, the conservative activist lawyer who helped craft the bounty law in the first place. He’s also Marcus’s attorney, and that of Collin Davis, who is suing a formerly pregnant partner for crossing state lines to receive abortion care.
Mitchell is a conservative Texas legal shark, the apex predator of progressivism who defends everything from anti-abortion legislation to book bans. He also knows the law he help craft better than anyone. As the Silva case edges toward the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s clear that he hopes to use it to further erode the rights of people to abort an unwanted pregnancy, even for spousal abuse reasons.
Under the current U.S. Supreme Court, anti-abortion judges hold a super majority thanks to former President and current convicted felon Donald Trump appointing three in four years. It was Trump’s court that fulfilled the conservative dream of repealing Roe, long considered safe and settled law. It’s not unreasonable to think that Mitchell could use Marcus Silva’s lawsuit to strike down more protections.
If it works, pregnant people in Texas will likely have no escape from abusive situations, even if they are still technically allowed to receive an abortion through leaving the state or mail order medication. That is clearly the goal of Mitchell leading the lawsuit, and it’s dangerous for all future pregnant people.