The Man Defending the Texas Abortion Law at the Supreme Court Is Truly Awful

Here is a non-exhaustive list of Mitchell’s retrograde view to keep in mind when reading coverage of the Supreme Court arguments.

Mitchell Hates Birth Control and Non-procreative Sex

In a March 2020 class action lawsuit challenging the Obamacare birth control coverage requirement, Mitchell said birth control isn’t preventive care because it’s not needed to prevent pregnancy when women can just close their legs instead:

“Contraception and sterilization are simply devices that enable women who do not wish to become pregnant—but who are unwilling to refrain from sexual intercourse—to engage in sexual intercourse while greatly reducing their risk of pregnancy.”

If the Court does as he wishes and overturns Roe, he reiterated his view that women who don’t want children can simply stop boning: “Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse.” Please note the total erasure of the impregnating parties from this picture.

Mitchell Hates LGBTQ rights

Not a fan! In his brief in the Mississippi case, he claimed that sex with a same-sex partner (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) and marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015) are court-invented rights that are “just as lawless as Roe” and invited the court to overturn them alongside Roe. He has referred to LGBTQ people as engaging in “homosexual behavior” and “homosexual conduct” and during a 2018 Federalist Society forum, he called transgender people “transgendered,” a term that GLAAD says artificially separates trans from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer. They note that you wouldn’t call Elton John “gayed.” Also in 2018, he represented a group seeking exemptions to anti-discrimination rules so they could refuse to hire LGBTQ people it if counters their religious beliefs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-man-defending-the-texas-abortion-law-at-the-supreme-court-is-truly-awful/ar-AAQ6FzF?ocid=msedgntp