Pro-abortion men are apparently signing up for vasectomies in the wake of Texas’ new law restricting abortions after about six weeks into a pregnancy.
In May, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed into law a ban on most abortions once cardiac activity can be detected in an unborn child, which generally happens six weeks into a pregnancy. After the law went into effect into September, it was immediately challenged by abortion advocates in the courts. The challenges have so far been unsuccessful at blocking the law, however.
In somewhat of a protest over the new legislation, pro-abortion men have begun receiving vasectomies in solidarity with women over Texas’ new abortion restrictions, according to The Washington Post.
Austin Urology Institute’s Koushik Shaw said his practice saw about a 15% jump in vasectomy operations since the law went into effect, with patients citing the law as the primary reason for getting the surgery.
Patients tell Shaw “‘Hey, I’m actually here because some of these changes that Abbott and our legislature have passed that are really impacting our decision-making in terms of family planning,’ so that was a new one for me as a reason — the first time, patients are citing a state law as their motivating factor,” Shaw said, according to the Post.
The Texas law narrowly avoided the fate of most recent abortion restrictions: A stay by a court. Shortly after coming into effect in September, a group of abortion providers petitioned the Supreme Court to stay the law. As The Daily Wire reported:
The court’s conservative majority rejected the abortion providers’ request because of the law’s enforcement mechanism, which separates it from “heartbeat” laws passed in other states. The law deputizes private citizens, granting them standing to file lawsuits against violating abortion providers rather than authorizing state agents to police them. The court dismissed the request, which names every state court judge and clerk as defendants, based on procedural grounds.
“It is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention,” the ruling states. “The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.”
The court’s conservative majority rejected the abortion providers’ request because of the law’s enforcement mechanism, which separates it from “heartbeat” laws passed in other states. The law deputizes private citizens, granting them standing to file lawsuits against violating abortion providers rather than authorizing state agents to police them. The court dismissed the request, which names every state court judge and clerk as defendants, based on procedural grounds.
“It is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention,” the ruling states. “The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.”