The article “Justice Department sues Texas over six-week abortion ban” written by Tierney Sneed and Evan Perez, published on September 9th 2021, tackles the controversy of the abortion law filed in Texas.

Pro-life activists have found a way in Texas to prevent abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. They used a legal loophole, in which they did not criminalize abortions through the criminal law but through the civil law, which now states that any individual person can sue someone who helps in the act of abortions.

The topic is very relevant because it is a scandal for many people in many ways. As this does not only reflect the heated political situation and the division of the country. It is on one side a big win for the pro-life side while it is a big loss for those who oppose it. Aside of the political dilemma, this might just be the beginning of this topic, as this law also opens up possibilities for other states to do the same. As mentioned in the article, the law was “unprecedented” which means there has not been a legal decision made before of which the judgement is based on. Hence, this case might be the precedent for the future lawsuits. The public interest is also very big as it especially affects all women in the country as it is said “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights”. Lastly, the topic also has historical relevance has this throws the emancipation back by 71 years, when the abortion was first legalized in 1950.

The authors’ standing point on this topic becomes clear when realizing how negative this law is being viewed in the article as it is described as “unconstitutional” and people “should fear” this change. Nonetheless, the authors have also achieved to keep their personal opinion out of this abstract and keeping the article unbiased, by using multiple quotes of attorney General Merrick Garland who highly criticize this law. The reader, however, is somewhat persuaded to believe this opinion as it is argued in several ways.

First, the authors refer to the constitution and argue how this law is going against the American rights by using quotes from Garland, stating: “This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear”. This argumentation appeals to pathos, as it tries to emotionally address the reader when mentioning that it is affecting every American as it is threatening American rights and giving the audience a feeling of unity. Further it appeals to ethos, as the authors quote a famous attorney who graduated from Harvard University which makes him a reliable and trustworthy source. Lastly, the authors try to convince the reader to be against the law by using logos, when mentioning further consequences that this law will have. It appears to be logic that now that this law exists, it is important to “protect abortion clinics” and refers to “threats against patients who are seeking reproductive health services”. Nevertheless, people will still feel the need to abort a child if necessary and hence more illegal activity can be expected.