Anti-abortion leaders are pushing the narrative that access to abortion pills increases cases of reproductive coercion—defined as using force or threats to deny an individual’s reproductive autonomy—and enables abusive men to harm their partners. But, a lawyer loudly making these claims represents alleged abusers themselves. It’s yet another illustration of how bogus the anti-abortion arguments of ‘protecting women’ are.

Formerly the solicitor general of Texas, Jonathan Mitchell is best known today as the attorney behind Texas’s ‘bounty hunter’ bill, S.B. 8, and multiple anti-abortion ‘wrongful death’ cases in Texas. These cases target abortion providers and anyone else accused of helping someone access abortion pills in the state. Mitchell and other anti-abortion advocates claim that these cases are meant to stop reproductive coercion and abuse. In reality, at least two of Mitchell’s anti-abortion “wrongful death” clients have themselves faced allegations of abusing women:

• Jerry Rodriguez: According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Mitchell client Jerry Rodriguez is suing the doctor who allegedly provided his girlfriend with abortion pills. The Chronicle states that Rodriguez was “previously convicted of assaulting one woman and threatening to kill another.” In his case, Mitchell attempts to paint Rodriguez as a wronged and grieving father. Mitchell fails to mention that, according to The Chronicle, the woman at the center of Rodriguez’s lawsuit entered the hospital for domestic violence with indications of strangulation, and later alleged to authorities that it was Rodriguez abusing her. (In the presence of Rodriguez in the hospital, she had previously repeated back to authorities Rodriguez’s allegation that her husband—and not Rodriguez—had hurt her.) Further, it is possible that Rodriguez knew she was pregnant at the time when she required hospitalization for alleged abuse by him, thus further undermining the narrative that Rodriguez wanted to ensure a healthy pregnancy leading to birth. The suit has since been dismissed.
• Marcus Silva: According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Mitchell client Marcus Silva “sued his ex-wife’s three friends…for allegedly helping her arrange a medication abortion.” Silva has an “alleged record of verbal and emotional abuse.” This includes “a Ring video transcript in which he acknowledged using legal threats to extort sex from his ex-wife.” When Mitchell asked the Texas Supreme Court to depose Silva’s ex-wife, the court’s Chief Justice Jimmy Blalock rejected the request and condemned Silva. Blalock stated that Silva “engaged in disgracefully vicious harassment and intimidation of his ex-wife…during the course of their marriage’s demise and during this litigation.” Silva ultimately dropped his case.

While anti-abortion actors are increasingly using the term “reproductive coercion” when discussing alleged forced medication abortions, these cases are a clear demonstration of how woefully incomplete their definition of reproductive coercion is. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reproductive coercion defines any behavior meant to exert power or control over another person’s reproductive autonomy. While this can include coercing someone to have an abortion, as anti-abortion advocates claim, it also includes restricting access to birth control and forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will. At least one study from the Columbia Social Work Review argues that abortion bans and other policies that restrict bodily autonomy – such as restrictions on birth control – also fall under the category of reproductive coercion.

Jonathan Mitchell has made a career as an attorney fighting for exactly these policies, with his anti-abortion “wrongful death” cases being the most recent example. Mitchell has previously represented an unnamed Texas Christian University student who claimed he had been suspended because of “gender discrimination” after “admit[ting] in text messages to being a rapist.” Mitchell fought to allow corporations to deny employees birth control coverage on religious grounds, rejecting the idea that birth control is preventive care and promoting abstinence instead. He even represented anti-abortion advocate Mark Lee Dickson in a case against the Lilith Fund, in which Mitchell referred to this vital abortion fund as a “criminal organization” in court.

Mitchell’s cases are a clear reflection of what happens when anti-abortion actors redefine terms to further their regressive agenda. While they claim to be protecting women from abuse by restricting abortion access, the data paints a different picture. In 2014, data from the Turnaway Study was used to show that abortion bans may force women to stay “in contact with violent partners…putting women and their children at risk.” A May 2024 study in Health Affairs demonstrated a connection between abortion bans and increased “domestic violence-related homicides.” A December 2025 study in the Journal of Health Economics showed something similar: Domestic violence against women “significantly increased” in states that banned abortion after Roe fell. The National Domestic Violence Hotline has also reported an increase in women reporting reproductive coercion, including partners intercepting their birth control and weaponizing their fear of abortion criminalization.

The bottom line is that pregnant and parenting people are suffering increased reproductive coercion while living under an increasing number of anti-abortion laws – not as a result of the availability of safe, effective abortion pills. Jonathan Mitchell and anti-abortion leaders continue to show that the goal of the anti-abortion movement is not to stop abusers, but rather to stop abortion and limit reproductive freedoms more broadly – even if it means representing accused abusers.