The Texas Heartbeat Act has been so successful and acquired such notoriety within the abortion industry that they have felt compelled to challenge the law 22 times in court. This act of astonishing and abiding aggression signals little more than desperation to thwart what has been a massive win for preborn children. The latest lawsuit, filed in part by Wendy Davis—no stranger to pro-abortion political stunts—suffers the same fatal flaws as the many before it.
Since becoming effective on September 1, 2021, the Texas Heartbeat Act has withstood an onslaught of lawsuits engineered to foil the law’s enforcement. None have yet worked as intended, a fact that has been more a feature than a bug. Unlike other Pro-Life laws, the Texas Heartbeat Act relies on only civil lawsuits as its enforcement mechanism. The ordinary legal targets of the abortion industry—state actors like district attorneys and state agency officials—are not involved in the Texas Heartbeat Act’s enforcement and therefore cannot be sued.
Because of the Texas Heartbeat Act’s unique design, the abortion industry has labored to find an adequate defendant by whom they can attack the law. The very first lawsuit filed by the abortion industry epitomized this problem. Instead of suing one or just a few parties, they sued essentially everyone: a judge and a court clerk, a private citizen and state agency officials, and the attorney general to boot. None of these defendants stuck, and the lawsuit ultimately failed.
The abortion industry has also targeted Texas Right to Life in 14 now-consolidated state lawsuits. Though these lawsuits are ongoing, the Texas Heartbeat Act is still in effect and saving lives. With so many lawsuits, it is difficult to keep them all straight—though we have done our best to keep track of what we’ve seen so far.
With this latest lawsuit, the legal attacks against the Texas Heartbeat Act stand at 22. And there’s no reason to believe that this new lawsuit will make a difference. Wendy Davis and the Stigma Relief Fund filed a lawsuit against State Representative Briscoe Cain and three private citizens. This lawsuit comes after Cain sent cease-and-desist letters to various abortion funds in Texas imploring them to stop violating a pre-Roe v. Wade Texas law that prohibits “furnishing the means” of an elective abortion. Read more about why this lawsuit will fail here.
Perhaps the most puzzling (and amusing) aspect of the lawsuit is Wendy Davis’ involvement. Depending on how familiar you are with political failures in Texas, “Wendy Davis” may or may not summon hazy memories. She is most known for her fruitless 2013 filibuster against the Preborn Pain Act in the Texas State Senate. While this exercise launched her into glory in progressive media, it stunted her lackluster political career. She ran for governor in 2014, losing by the largest margin of any candidate this century. Undeterred, she ran for Congress in 2020 against Pro-Life stalwart Chip Roy, again greatly falling short of everyone’s lowest expectations.
Davis’ post-political career has largely settled on pro-abortion activism. Out of sight and out of mind, she continues to work with an industry that makes a living off of the destruction of preborn life. But she operates under the radar, where her insidious endeavors no longer obtain primetime hits or frontpage acclaim in progressive media. This lack of relevance appears to explain her most recent antic.
No one has sued Wendy Davis under the Texas Heartbeat Act. No one has threatened to sue Wendy Davis under the Texas Heartbeat Act. No one believes someone will sue Wendy Davis under the Texas Heartbeat Act. To put the point simply, she has no association with the Texas Heartbeat Act. It does not prohibit her behavior or activism. It does not threaten her with civil lawsuits. It does not violate any of her alleged constitutional rights. Davis may find the Texas Heartbeat Act objectionable, but that in itself does not confer standing to sue. Nor does pitiful attention-seeking.
The Texas Heartbeat Act has survived 21 lawsuits thus far, no matter the venue, plaintiff, or defendant. A 22nd lawsuit shouldn’t alter that course, especially when filed by Wendy Davis. Why would she start winning now?
