Last Tuesday, the city of Edgewood, a largely rural and conservative community just east of Albuquerque, New Mexico, held a town meeting regarding its proposed ordinance to ban the distribution and acquisition of abortion-inducing medications.
Edgewood seems to be following the lead of other cities and municipalities in New Mexico and Texas by relying on the antiquated Comstock Act, which has been interpreted as restricting the sale and purchase of abortion pills. Let’s not be fooled: The purpose of such efforts is to create what “pro-life” advocates call “sanctuary cities for the unborn.” Such ordinances hinge on the argument that federal law (the Comstock Act) supersedes state abortion laws and that the 150-year-old Act makes it illegal for abortion providers and/or individuals to receive abortion medications.
Abortion is legal in New Mexico, and the recently passed Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act prohibits any public body from imposing ordinances or laws that restrict individuals from receiving reproductive or gender-affirming care.
Among the town hall attendees (some in person and some who called in remotely) were several lawyers, one of which has offered his services to the city free of charge. This lawyer’s name is Johnathan Mitchell, a lawyer and former Solicitor General of Texas.
Mitchell is most known for his role in devising the legal strategy for the Texas ban on abortion after six weeks which also empowers private citizens to sue those who violate it.
Mr. Mitchell has quite a long resume that should ring alarm bells in any community.
Mitchell once clerked for the arch-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and has publicly announced that his personal goal is to ensure that an anti-abortion law is enacted and upheld by the Supreme Court.
He argued in a Supreme Court brief that overturning Roe v. Wade would provide women with an opportunity to change their “jezebel-like” sexual behavior, stating: “Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse.… One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that abortion will be available to her later.”
His resume also includes “religious freedom” work that the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a hate group, and represented an organization that criticized the Harvard Law Review’s use of “race and sex preferences” when selecting members and articles, claiming that is discriminated against whites and men. Mitchell was behind an anti-union legal campaign and criticized court rulings in favor of marriage equality and gay rights. He also represents a group that sought exemptions to anti-discrimination laws so they could refuse to hire members of the LGBTQ community.
Mitchell’s latest crusade involves applying his trademark creative legal efforts to ban books that discuss sex, abortion, race, racism, slavery, and LGBTQ+ identity. He drafted an ordinance for the Abilene City Council in Texas that bars librarians and city employees from displaying LGBTQ+ flags and/or emblems, and takes legal action against acknowledging Pride Month.
If we look closely at Mitchell’s history, challenging access to abortion pills is only part of the story. What’s stopping communities from hiring his creative legal mind to craft laws discriminating against members of the LGBTQ+ community or to pull books about slavery, racism, and social inequality from community library shelves?
The fact that the city of Edgewood is seeking legal advice from someone like Mitchell is deeply disturbing and puts both abortion and equal rights at risk for its residents.