This is Texas Supreme Court Justice John Devine—a man tasked w/ impartially upholding the law—bragging about breaking the law to harass women at abortion clinics. He’s one of the justices who just blocked Kate Cox from getting a *legal* abortion. He’s up for reelection in 2024.

The Republican states should just rename themselves the United States of Gilead.

Election Day is on November 5, 2024. The primary is March 5, 2024, and a primary runoff is May 28, 2024. Make sure to vote him out!

Let’s make it his last elected office anywhere!!

"Justice Devine's actions contradict justice. Texans deserve leaders who respect the law, not flaunt its disregard."

And here’s the Dem who’s filed to run against him: Donate!

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frédéric Bastiat This is the Matrix that has us in its grip. We must change it

Texas is a mess. I'm glad you are still in the fight.

@GizmosSpace His actions should disqualify him from being a judge

Enough!Men like this give Christofascists their reputation. It's about control. #VoteBlueToProtectWomensRights

To anyone who loves the truth, Beto, is not shooting straight with you. Fact 1. "The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in Florida." Fact 2. "Florida’s medical exception to its abortion prohibition expressly includes pregnancies where a baby has a fatal fetal abnormality like trisomy 18, so if Ms. Cox 'needs an abortion and she needs it now,' she can do just that - in Florida, the state where she is currently located. No relief is necessary from this Court or any other." Fact 3. "Ms. Cox has not alleged that she has been diagnosed with a life-threatening medical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy." Fact 4. Ms. Cox has not alleged that any medical condition places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced. Similarly, Dr. Karsan fails to even allege the statutory requirement that there exists a condition that, in her “reasonable medical judgment” necessitates an abortion. Instead, Dr. Karson alleges only that she has a “good faith belief” (a subjective standard not sufficient under the law) that Ms. Cox meets the medical exception requirements. Fact 5. Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., a medical expert relied on by both parties in this suit, has reviewed the Plaintiffs’ petition and determined that, as pled, the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that they fall within the medical exception. Plaintiffs have failed to plead that Ms. Cox qualifies for the medical exception to Texas’ abortion prohibition and are consequently not entitled to any relief. Fact 6. Ms. Cox allegedly had elevated glucose in October but did not receive a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. It is not without import to note that Ms. Cox also reported *elevated glucose levels in a prior pregnancy* during which she unsurprisingly did *not* seek an abortion because that child did not have the same diagnoses. There are no facts pled which indicate that Ms. Cox’s elevated glucose levels in October are a life-threatening physical condition, nor that they place her at risk of death of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. To the contrary, her decision to seek an abortion during this pregnancy based on “elevated glucose” when she had not similarly sought in the past, merely supports the assertion that there is no true medical emergency. Fact 7. Dr. Karsan is a board-certified OB/GYN in private practice at Comprehensive Women’s Healthcare in Houston. She is a physician plaintiff in Zurawski and has provided testimony that she holds privileges at Women’s Hospital. Women’s Hospital will only allow Dr. Karsan to perform abortions pursuant to the medical exception after she consults with a second physician, obtains their concurrence that the patient qualifies, and obtains approval from hospital administration. Dr. Karsan allegedly met Ms. Cox and reviewed her medical records. There are no facts pled which demonstrate they established a physician-patient relationship, nor that Dr. Karsan has conducted any physical examination of Ms. Cox. Dr. Karsan subjectively believes that Ms. Cox qualifies for the medical exception, despite failing to identify Ms. Cox’s life-threatening physical condition or explain how the condition places Ms. Cox at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment to a major bodily function if an abortion is not performed. source: