By Shoshanna Ehrlich for Ms. Magazine.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Ms. Magazine-Public News Service Collaboration

The state of Texas does not believe its overflowing arsenal of antiabortion laws-including a near-total ban on abortion, the infamous SB 8 that turns private parties into bounty-hunters by offering them cash prizes for turning in abortion "aiders and abettors," and municipal travel bans that similarly encourage vigilante justice against anyone using local roads to transport abortion seekers across state laws-has done enough to strip pregnant people of control over their bodies.

Represented by antiabortion warrior Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas is suing the Biden administration in a challenge to the Title IX rule that abortion-related discrimination is prohibited sex discrimination. Two professors from the University of Texas-Austin-John Hatfield, a professor of finance, and Daniel Bonevac, a philosophy professor-subsequently joined the suit as named plaintiffs.

As stated in their court declarations, the two professors object to and refuse to comply with the "Biden Administration's recently announced edict ... [which] represents an attempt to force every educator in the United States to conform to a highly contentious interpretation of ... abortion rights."

Although identified as a "recent edit," abortion-based discrimination has been prohibited since the Title IX regulations first went into effect in 1975.

While my focus is on the challenge to abortion protections, the lawsuit also challenges the 2024 Title IX regulations affirming that discrimination and harassment based on "sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual characteristics" are prohibited under Title IX due to the multiple harms, including bullying and harassment, of not having one's identity recognized or respected.

In virtually identical court declarations, the professors declare that they will not "honor any student's demands to be addressed by the singular pronoun 'they'" to avoid being made "a fool of ... to accommodate a student's delusional beliefs," and that teaching assistants will not be permitted to "engage in cross-dressing while teaching my classes or interacting with ... students."

To make sense of this case, originally filed at the end of April in the Amarillo division of the federal district court for the northern district of Texas, let's start by taking a quick look at some of the key players. Once again, older white men are leading the charge-this time, by bringing the patriarchal surveillance state into the classroom.

Ken Paxton has served as attorney general of Texas since 2015. According to Texas Monthly, he "has used his office as a cudgel in the culture wars for the Christian right," including an unrelenting legal campaign against abortion. Celebrating the fall of Roe, he declared June 24 the annual Sanctity of Life holiday to memorialize the "70 million babies that have been killed in the womb," and proclaimed that he looked "forward to defending the pro-life laws of Texas and the lives of all unborn children moving forward."

In a move the Washington Post characterized as "unnecessary, inexplicable cruelty," after a lower court ruled that Kate Cox, whose fetus had a lethal anomaly, could obtain an abortion under the state's narrow medical emergency exception, Paxton wrote to the hospitals where her doctor had admitting privileges warning them that the court's order would not insulate them from criminal and civil liability, including "first degree felony prosecutions."

The lawsuit was presumably filed in Amarillo because Trump appointee Mathew Kaczmaryk, who is notoriously antiabortion, is its sole presiding judge. Kaczmaryk ruled in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in its challenge to the FDA's approval of mifepristone and its subsequent relaxing of regulations in an opinion that was permeated with both "junk science" and "misleading antiabortion tropes." The case was just dismissed by the Supreme Court based on the lack of "legal standing to bring the lawsuit because they were not harmed by the FDA's loosening of restrictions on mifepristone over the last eight years."

Bonevac has been one of Trump's most prominent academic supporters, according to an article that calls him one of "the only conservative [scholars] on campus." During Trump's last campaign, Bonevac "became a spokesman of sorts for the Scholars and Writers for America group, which argued that the property tycoon was 'the candidate most likely to restore the promise of America.'"

Hatfield and Bonevac are represented by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney before the Supreme Court in his case to stay on the presidential ballot-and more locally as the legal strategist behind both SB 8 and municipal travel bans, which promote vigilante justice against those aiding or transporting abortions seekers. Through these efforts, Mitchell has been instrumental in transforming Texas into an abortion desert. Adamant about keeping it this way, he is representing several men intent upon punishing their ex-partners for having had abortions. Mitchell is also a key strategist in the growing conservative push to resurrect the moribund 1873 Comstock Act as the basis for imposing a national abortion ban.

Title IX forces Texas educators to "protect women who abort their pregnancies even when doing so violates Texas law," the lawsuit alleges, such as by requiring them to excuse abortion-related absences as they would any other health-related absence. They say Title IX prohibits discrimination against students who "have engaged in the shipment or receipt of abortion pills and abortion-related paraphernalia in violation of federal law." (Emphasis added.)

The above reference to federal law points to the Comstock Act-Mitchell's favorite Victorian era purity law, which was intended to cleanse the nation of sexual corruption by prohibiting the sending of obscene materials, including contraceptives and anything that could be used to cause an abortion. The resurrection of this moribund law has become the conservative backdoor strategy for imposing an abortion ban on the country as a whole. This plan is now firmly embedded in Project 2025-the "unprecedented effort being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations" in order to "dismantle the U.S. government and replace it with Trump's vision," according to the Associated Press.

Let's look more closely at what Hatfield and Bonevac are apparently so upset about when it comes to Title IX's non-discrimination protections for those who have had abortions or have sent or received abortion pills or "abortion-related paraphernalia" such that they have openly declared their intent to flout federal law.

One key objection is that abortion-related accommodations make them "complicit" in criminal activity. They also apparently hold their students to the same standard by expecting "their teaching assistants to obey and respect the laws of Texas and the laws of the United States"-so presumably they screen and reject prospective TAs for any kind of legal infraction, such as a speeding ticket or smoking weed.

Additionally, while the professors claim they will accommodate students who need "medically necessary abortions," they refuse to "accommodate a purely elective abortion that serves only to kill an unborn child that was conceived through an act of voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse."

This sets up a binary when it comes to their understanding of the sexual and reproductive lives of their students-namely, that there are only two kinds of abortions:

• those that are medically necessary (which is an extremely high bar under Texas law), or


• those that, as they seem to suggest, are undertaken in rather 'frivolous' circumstances when weighted against the "act of violence committed against the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family."

Assuming the genuineness of their commitment to antiabortion values, one must noneetheless pause to consider whether something more is involved. A perusal of social media comments makes clear this is indeed the case:

• Why would my economics or philosophy professor need to know that I got so much as a pedicure, much less any kind of medical treatment?


• No woman should enroll in a class with these creeps. If this is the amount of twisted control they believe they have over their women students, no parent should want their daughter to go near them.


• Pretty sure dudes like this ultimately don't think women should be educated anyway.


• Never underestimate how much a man hates women and wants to control them.


• How would they even find that information out about someone? I sure as hell hope they're not asking people that about that information. That's just totally wrong and creepy as hell.

At its core, this case is about the surveillance and control of the sexual and reproductive lives of students, and the chillingly privileged view that professors are somehow entitled to this measure of control over students' lives based upon their own views about abortion.




Shoshanna Ehrlich wrote this article for Ms. Magazine.



get more stories like this via email

Texas lawmakers passed the Life of the Mother Act during the legislative session. It was billed as legislation to clarify when doctors in the state can legally perform an abortion.

Texas adopted one of the most restrictive abortion bans in 2021. The ban allows the procedure only if the life of the mother is in danger or there is a risk of impairment of a primary bodily function.

Houston-based OB/GYN Dr. Damla Karsan said, despite the "clarification," medical professionals are still hesitant to provide care in most cases.

"It's been frustrating, because I feel restricted in my ability to offer them the full scope of options for their care," said Karsan. "I know it's really had a chilling effect on all my colleagues, and myself as well."

Karsan was involved in two legal challenges to the abortion ban, including the case of Kate Cox.

The Houston mother of two received national attention after traveling to another state to have an abortion after it was determined her third child would not survive.

Backers of the new legislation say it ensures women who have medical emergencies can get an abortion.

It defines "life-threatening" as a condition that's capable of causing death or serious injury. A survey of OB/GYNs in the state shows 60% of those who responded fear legal repercussions.

Karsan said if women need abortion care, there are organizations available to help.

"I direct a lot of people to the National Network of Abortion Funds," said Karsan. "Their website can connect you if you want to donate, if you want to volunteer, but also if you're looking for care. As usual it's the poor, the disenfranchised that are going to suffer the most."

According to the survey, many doctors are leaving the state or going into early retirement because of the abortion ban.




get more stories like this via email

Fighting for a wide range of people with a skill for compromise, is how Rep. Melissa Hortman, D-Brooklyn Park, is being remembered for following her assassination Saturday.

A civic engagement group said she was a shining example of a woman in politics. Hortman's murder is seen by political observers as a stunning and tragic example of the increasingly violent tone surrounding public office in America. Hortman served as Minnesota House Speaker from 2019 until earlier this year, leading Democrats during power-sharing negotiations with Republicans in an evenly-divided chamber.

Michelle Witte, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota, said Hortman stayed true to the mission of an elected official.

"Obviously, (a) rise to power but also just being in the community working at all levels, at the local level to engage people in issues that are important to them," Witte recounted.

Witte noted Hortman's willingness to make tough decisions was on display this spring when finalizing a new budget, as she received pushback from her own party during the negotiations. Witte pointed out Minnesota still has gaps in electing women legislators, despite having more female politicians than over half the states in the U.S.

She added Hortman was among the most notable women in politics statewide, with others including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn.

In 2023, Hortman was credited for spearheading several major policies including paid medical leave, abortion protections, and a universal school meal program. While this year's power-sharing agreement with Republicans did have moments of friction, Witte said Hortman's arrangement with GOP House Speaker Lisa Demuth was symbolic of women succeeding in the world of politics.

"The League of Women Voters, we actually made a card out of the great handshake between Melissa Hortman and Lisa Demuth when they reach their power-sharing agreement," Witte recalled. "I was so proud of that because that is what we really work for at the League, is seeing that working together."

Witte hopes voters pay more attention to those examples of bipartisanship and appreciate elected leaders who go above and beyond to serve the public. She acknowledged the attacks on Minnesota lawmakers may make people feel anxious about taking part in democracy, adding the country needs to promote voter safety and prevent future candidates from being silenced.


get more stories like this via email

Women college graduates are not sticking to traditional compatibility traits when choosing a husband, according to one study. Preferences are changing as economics play a larger role.

American Institute for Boys and Men data say female college graduates have difficulty finding equally-educated partners.

University of Indianapolis Sociology Professor Amanda Miller, PhD, said historically, college-educated women married within the same circles.

Instead of foregoing marriage entirely, Miller explained, more are deciding on "exogamy" - marrying outside their social group.

"They're dipping down into a group of men who do not have a college education, but who do make a good living financially," said Miller. "College-educated women - if they can't find a man who has a degree - they're marrying, for example, someone who's a general contractor and has his own business, or a union pipefitter who makes a really good living."

The study found that marriage rates for college-educated women remain stable, even as their primary partners -- college-educated men -- become scarce.

Only about 50% of college-educated women marry a man at the same education level, while roughly 25% marry someone without a college degree. Another 25% remain single.

According to the research site World Population Review, in Indiana 50% of men and almost 48% of women are married.

Miller said remaining single or having a baby out of wedlock no longer carries the stigma it has in previous generations.

She added that the "working class" often has conservative or very traditional family values, and most people's beliefs and behaviors don't always go together.

"So, if you ask people with a high school diploma or perhaps an associate's degree or some college, 'Is it okay to have a baby out of wedlock? Is it okay to get divorced? Is it okay to cohabit?'" said Miller, "their answer is often 'no.' The flip side happens when we talk to the college-educated - they don't actually do those things themselves."

Miller also noted a decrease in women out-earning or being more educated than their husbands.

She observed that as college-educated women choose to marry men without college degrees, fewer working-class men marry women of a similar background.

get more stories like this via email