Opinion polls have repeatedly made clear that U.S. voters are turned off by the Republican Party's fixation on banning abortion care and controlling Americans' reproductive choices—but that didn't stop three GOP officials from writing in a court filing this month that they want to restrict abortion pill access because it would reduce teen pregnancy rates in their state.
"In my expert legal opinion, this is deeply gross and weird," wrote attorney and writer Madiba K. Dennie on Monday at Balls & Strikes, a news outlet focused on the judiciary.
Dennie was referring to a legal filing by Republican Attorneys General Andrew Bailey of Missouri, Kris Kobach of Kansas, and Raúl Labrador of Idaho in a case regarding mifepristone, one of two pills commonly used in medication abortions—which account for more than half of abortions in the United States.
As S.P. Rogers wrote at the newsletter Repro-Truth, attorneys general filed an amended complaint earlier this month in an effort to revive Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a case in which the plaintiffs argued in favor of severely restricting mifepristone access nationwide.
The three states had joined the case earlier this year, before the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case based on the plaintiffs' lack of standing.
Because the high court didn't outright dismiss the case, the three attorneys general were able to file a complaint on October 11 seeking to prohibit mifepristone use for anyone under the age of 18 and overturn eased restrictions for the drug.
Bailey, Kobach, and Labrador argued that mifepristone access would could cause "injuries" to their states because it is "depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers."
"A loss of potential population causes further injuries as well: The [states'] subsequent 'diminishment of political representation' and 'loss of federal funds,' such as potentially 'losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are' reduced or their increase diminished," reads the court filing.
In other words, wrote Rogers, in the view of the Republican state officials, "teenage girls, which the states refer to as 'teenaged mothers,' exist for the purposes of churning out new citizens for the states."
"Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri are claiming to have a legitimate, sovereign state interest in forced birth—in teenage girls and women as breeders. It's an argument that positions everyone capable of birthing as brood mares—a scenario in which the state does not exist for the people, but the people for the state—and augurs a future claim for the prohibition of contraception," added Rogers.
Republicans including GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump have signaled their desire to roll back the right to contraception.
At Balls & Strikes, Dennie wrote that the GOP officials made clear that they believe "uteri are state slush funds, and girls owe the state reproduction once they are capable of it."
"A personal dislike of somebody else taking medicine is not a legitimate grievance," wrote Dennie. "So the states are trying to show that they are entitled to the population growth and accompanying funds that pregnant minors would produce, and the FDA is getting in the way of that."
While the argument is "shocking in its brazenness," added Dennie, it shouldn't come as a surprise in a country where the Republican Party has shown no sign of backing down from its goal of banning abortion, even as news reports mount about children who have been forced to give birth and pregnant patients who have died or become gravely ill because healthcare providers have refused to treat them for fear of prosecution.
The legal complaint, said Dennie, "is a natural outgrowth of the conservative legal movement's efforts to subordinate women."
