Post-Roe v. Wade Fears Realized As Trump Judge Approves Contraception Suit

Abortion rights groups have raised concerns that a Donald Trump-nominated federal judge approving an anti-contraception lawsuit is proof the GOP will go further restricting the procedure post Roe v. Wade.

Matthew Kacsmaryk, a judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, recently issued an opinion on the case of Deanda v. Becerra, a lawsuit filed by a Christian father hoping to block the Title X federal program.

In his suit, Alexander Deanda argues that Title X, which approves family planning services be available for anyone, including minors, violates his constitutional right as a parent.

Deanda claims that as he is raising his children as Christians and therefore should "practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage," Title X violates the direct upbringing of his children.

In his December 8 opinion, Kacsmaryk said that the federal program for birth control does violate Deanda's rights.

While the judge, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2017, did not halt the program in his ruling, he allowed both slides to present their arguments for what should happen next.

Deanda's legal team have already signaled they will seek to temporarily shut down Title X while the case is being resolved, potentially putting young people's chance to access contraceptives in limbo while the case is being argued.

The opinion meant Kacsmaryk became the first federal justice to approve a challenge to the right to contraception in the wake of the overturning of Roe. V. Wade.

Abortion rights and pro-contraception groups say the ruling is proof fears conservative judges will use the Supreme Court's overturning of the landmark abortion ruling to push forward with further restrictions are coming into fruition.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Newsweek: "Abortion opponents in Texas won't stop with overturning Roe—they are actively working to strip away access to basic health care services and restrict everyone's ability to control their own lives, bodies, and futures.

"This court's ruling could mean that young people in Texas would no longer be able to get birth control through the Title X family planning program without parental consent, contrary to federal requirements and guidance from American Academy of Pediatrics and others, who support confidential health care services for minors.

"The ruling could violate long-standing precedent, may have devastating consequences to the health and well-being of young people, and potentially lead to even greater restrictions to health care in the future," McGill Johnson added.

As argued by Vox's Ian Millhiser, who first reported on the decision, Kacsmaryk's ruling will almost certainly be thrown out by either the next appellate court or the Supreme Court as it is "riddled with legal errors."

Millhiser notes that one major issue is that the lawsuit lacks "standing"—evidence that a federal program has harmed the plaintiff in some way.

In his suit, Deanda does not claim that his children are attempting to access contraception via Title X, or even hypothetically planning to, but he is still attempting to block the program from offering contraception to minors without parental consent.

Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that the fact that Kacsmaryk took up the legally and constitutionally unsound case is proof that "anti-choice extremists never intended to stop" with overturning Roe v. Wade.

"They're coming for birth control, in vitro fertilization, and more," Timmaraju told Newsweek.

"This is their long game: Trump's judges are trying to twist the courts in their out-of-touch image for decades to come, and we must do everything in our power to stop them from taking away our fundamental freedoms."

It was the written opinion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in June for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade's guarantee of access to abortion, which sparked concerns from Democrats and pro-abortion groups that conservatives will go further.

Thomas wrote that after voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, the court now has a "duty" to review other all the Supreme Court's due process precedents.

Thomas named three cases as examples of where SCOTUS could "correct the error": Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right to same-sex marriage in 2015, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws that made sodomy illegal in 2003, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which allows married couples a legal right to buy and use contraceptives.

In July, one month after Roe v. Wade was overturned, the House passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would grant Americans a federal right to obtain and use birth control and contraception.

The bill cleared the House in a 228 to 195 vote, with all those who objected to the bill being Republicans.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, argued on the House floor that the bill was "completely unnecessary" and the right to contraception is not at risk.

"The liberal majority is clearly trying to stoke fears and mislead the American people once again because in their minds stoking fear clearly is the only way that they can win," Cammack said.

Following the vote, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) tweeted: "Make no mistake: Republicans & the far-right majority on the Supreme Court will take every opportunity to undermine—or overturn—the right to access birth control."