On June 24, the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot publicly vowed not to enforce Texas’ ban on abortion. As reported previously by The Dallas Express, the Texas legislature passed the ban in 2021 to take effect upon the anticipated reversal of Roe v. Wade.
“I want women across Texas, and especially here in Dallas County, to rest assured that my office will not stand in the way of them seeking the health care they need,” Creuzot said in a statement released on the official Dallas County District Attorney Twitter account.
Gabrielle Mendez and Consuela Mongold told The Dallas Express that Creuzot and other district attorneys who announced their intention to ignore Texas law are wrong—on the issue and the rule of law.
“It’s still a life,” said Mendez.
“Life begins at conception,” agreed Mongold.
The Dallas residents felt strongly that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was “the right decision.”
Creuzot is joined by dozens of elected prosecutors across the country who have said they would not enforce abortion bans in their respective states.
Under Texas law, any doctor who aborts an unborn child in the state can face a $100,000 fine, have their medical license revoked, and be subject to a maximum sentence of life in prison. There are exceptions to the law, allowing abortions to be conducted under certain circumstances, including a pregnancy that threatens a mother’s life or puts her at risk of “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
In an August interview with The Washington Post, Creuzot elaborated on his position on prosecuting abortions under the state’s laws.
“You have said you will not prosecute women seeking abortions. Why?” asked Tom Jackman, criminal justice reporter for the Post.
“Well, I said I’d exercise discretion,” Creuzot responded. “There are some abortions that may be so far along that there’s no medical reason to do it, and so, obviously, that may be a crime,” he said.
“On the other hand, we also know, especially since the Dobbs case, that there are many situations where a fetus, though well along the way, is not viable outside the body, and we have put doctors and women in a terrible position,” he added.
Creuzot went on to say, “And so I am in favor of women making — and doctors making choices that are best for the women for their own health care.”
The sisters disagree strongly with Creuzot’s statement.
“Man is not God,” said Mongold.
Mendez added that modern medical advances could also help pre-term babies survive outside the womb, relaying how her youngest was born premature and spent time in neonatal intensive care until he was healthy enough to travel home.
“I don’t want to think about what would have happened if I even considered aborting him,” she said.
In November’s election, Creuzot will face former District Attorney Faith Johnson, who has indicated that she would take an opposite stance. “I am personally, proudly pro-life, but as your district attorney I have and will uphold the Constitution and laws of the state of Texas,” she explained in a statement.
Not all disagree with Creuzot’s decision, however, and some took to Twitter to praise the district attorney.
In response to an announcement on the Dallas County DA Twitter account, Andrew McCaffery claimed, “It’s that disproportionate impact that requires brave people like you to stand up and act in good conscience on behalf of the people you serve – Thank you!”
It's that disproportionate impact that requires brave people like you to stand up and act in good conscience on behalf of the people you serve – Thank you!
— Andrew McCaffrey (@AndrewMcTXJD) June 25, 2022
Generally, Texans are divided on whether or not it should be legal to abort unborn children, and recent polls have suggested that a slight majority of citizens think abortion should be permitted in at least some instances, such as rape or incest, as reported by The Dallas Express.
I live in Dallas County and am voting for John Creuzot.
Removal from office for failure to enforce the laws passed by the state of Texas.
Good for him for standing his ground. I don’t think ANY laws should be made based on religious beliefs. People seem to forget that we have freedom to choose what we believe so how a laws based on a group of folks beliefs is even allowed to pass is beyond me. Furthermore they are not “unborn children” Scientifically.
My thought is if you don’t like them don’t have one but you don’t get to dictate whether I do or not. The fact that they’re okay with an 11 year old getting raped by a family member and forcefully pushing out a product of that is absurd. Then to add insult to injury that guy will have visitation rights even though 1. He committed a crime and 2. That child will suffer ontop of suffering through the traumatic event, for life. How about we protect full on people before fetuses?
To the “put them up for adoption” folks, I worked in an all boys group home. Trust me that most of those kids age out at 18 or 21and never get adopted. Some of them wishing they were never born. Some of the going from home to home never knowing love or normalcy and getting abused in different ways by different families. Theres very few success stories. Let’s be realistic, not many folks go and adopt a child of color with trauma history. This law is of disproportionate impact. Period.
The question isn’t even whether abortion should be illegal (and I believe it should be in most instances). The problem with Creuzot and many other prosecutors is they are setting themselves up as one-man legislators. That’s not what we elected then to do. It’s unconstitutional.
*legislatures
*them
Actually, DA are allowed to use discretion on which cases they try. It’s not unconstitutional.
Plus, with how many people are spewing nonsense in this online rag’s forums, I would assume that we would be better suited looking at real crimes and not a neighbor snitching on another naive or that they may or may not have had an abortion.
Lastly, has anyone thought about how crime will be affected by a large influx of unwanted children in about 15-18 years? I think people need to look past their own self-righteous religious beliefs and stop opposing those of us that aren’t as religious or people of Jewish faith that believe that life occurs at birth and not at conception.
Yes it is unconstitutional
Actually, it is not. Sorry you fail to understand the basic principals or government and elected officials’ roles. What is further distressing is that you fail to understand these principles and are still allowed to vote. #notsorry
The SCOTUS jurist violated their oath of office, so where does it end? We have become a nation of lawlessness.
This was just a stunt to get the pro-choice vote.
No matter what your stance on abortion, you should be concerned about a district attorney ( paid by your hard earned tax dollars) who refuses to do his duty to enforce laws and cherry picks which he will enforce. He is even worse on not prosecuting theft below $750 and lax bail policies that let criminals back on the streets to commit more violence. Must be nice to get big buck to not do your job. How can he sleep at night knowing murders have been committed by violent criminals he let out on lesser charges?
We need district attorneys who set aside their political opinions and objectively follow the rule of law. Faith Jackson is clear in her pro-life stance but is committed to following the law. Check their records not campaign rhetoric and don’t be swayed by one hot button issue like abortion. What will they do to make Dallas safer?
That is not accurate.
Thefts of items worth less than $750 are not prosecuted in Dallas County unless there is evidence that the property was stolen for “economic gain.” The policy went into effect in April 2019 and was designed to avoid “criminalizing poverty.”Feb 15, 2022
Stop the madness VOTE BLUE!
Hahahahahaha!
Hahahahahaha! Sure it was, Bill. Sure it was.
No. That is the policy. Sorry you fail to understand basic policies. I’m also sorry you appear to be ignorant and are allowed to vote. 😉
Cherry picking is legal if it takes the form of true prosecutorial discretion where case-by-case available resources and severity are weighed but it is not legal in this case where a blanket proclamation has been asserted.
Not true. You are wrong.
I wish there were enough Republicans in Dallas County to get rid of this POS but it’s unlikely. Between him, the city council, the commissioners court and Clay Jenkins, we don’t have a chance at fair qovernment in Dallas County. That’s why I’m moving to Tyler next year after my son starts college or I would already be gone.
And we thank you for moving to Tyler.
If you are for or against abortion isn’t the issue. An elected, appointed, or hired official must enforce the law as written. It is up to voters to elect those that represent their viewpoint/beliefs, so laws enacted are representative of the voters. For example, the woman who would not issue marriage license to same sex couples – that was not her decision to make. No matter her belief, she had to process her work as the law requires or quit/change job. Same for Creuzot.
Again. That is incorrect.
Also, everyone needs to know that the guy that owns this BS site took part of Jan 6 riots at the Capitol. Keep that in mind when reading these editorials.
Hahahahahaha! Socialism. You’ve got it bad don’t you Bill?
What about any of my comments has to do with socialism. It’s like you are an idiot parrot spewing nonsense you hear on T.Mac because you aren’t intelligent enough to keep up the facts or laws. Please stop responding. You are uneducated.
Lol. Someone flagged this? Hahaha! What about Truth? Wait. Most of you readers don’t like truth.
Attending an event and actually participating in the insurrection are two different things.
So when will the Dallas Express report on the lies 3 Supreme Court Justices told to get on the court? They won’t because it doesn’t fir the right-wing narrative.
Creuzot is just doing what his constituents want him to do. He’s doing his job with the resources he has.
Hahahahahaha!
Can we all finally talk about the elephant in the room as a society now? It’s the 21st century, why are we still allowing people’s belief in an imaginary friend to have any say in how others live their lives? Or better yet, why are are there human beings in the 21st century that still prescribe to that nonsense?
I agree. That said, they should be just as free to believe in a spooky guy up in the clouds as we are able to believe that there isn’t a spooky guy up in the clouds. That is what real freedom is. No need to infringe upon anyone’s religious or non-religious beliefs.
I’m curious how Florida is denying the lawsuit against their anti-abortion law brought by the Jewish community there. They believe that life starts at birth and the Florida law infringes on that belief.
Hear it is again. Don’t you understand this is the gov’t what to do with our lives.