The Washington Post is being criticized for a recent profile on a conservative lawyer that neglected to mention he supports a 150-year-old abortion ban.
Calling him "a legal renegade," The Post profile on Jonathan Mitchell referred to him as "an originalist of sorts," referring to his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. As part of that, Mitchell said he quibbles with the idea that Supreme Court Justices write rulings "for ages," calling the top Court nothing more than a "referee."
Journalist Susan Rinkunas blasted the piece on Blue Sky saying, she's "going to scream: The Washington Post published several hundred words about Jonathan Mitchell being a 'renegade' without explaining that his biggest project is trying to revive a 150-year-old law that could ban abortion nationwide."
ALSO READ: The menstrual police are coming: Inside the GOP's plan for total control over women
The law in question is The Comstock Act of 1873, part of the Heritage Foundation's 180-Day Playbook "Project 2025."
Mitchell, one of Donald Trump's former lawyers, helped craft the Texas bounty hunters law that implicates those who help people travel out of state for abortions.
He told the New York Times in February 2024, “We don’t need [Congress to pass] a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books.”
“I hope [Trump] doesn’t know about the existence of Comstock because I just don’t want him to shoot off his mouth,” Mitchell added. “I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election."
Comstock not only bans abortion but criminalizes mailing any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious material, including contraceptives and abortion-related items." That includes things like birth control pills, condoms and Mifepristone, to name a few.
"Mitchell's greatest achievement was having SCOTUS, which was about to abolish abortion rights anyway, agree there was a secret loophole that made it impossible to enforce constitutional rights," said longtime lawyer and analyst Max Kennerly. "That's not "savvy' (as WaPo calls him), it's the legal equivalent of 'my mom says I'm handsome.'"
"'A legal renegade': I’m sorry, a what now?" asked Planned Parenthood Action strategist Greg Greene
"I am not so sure that characterizing the country's leading anti-choice lawyer who defended Trump in the Colorado ballot case as an ideological 'renegade' is accurate," complained "Balls and Strikes" editor-in-chief Jay Willis.
"WTAF?" asked historian Stephen West, citing the Post article claiming Mitchell "has impressive mainstream accomplishments" and bragged he delegated "the right to enforce laws to private citizens."
