Data is forever, the government is not.

Regardless of where you stand on abortion (pro choice myself), this Texas law is a prime example of "I have nothing to hide" being complete rubbish.

This topic is going to be too divisive for a productive discussion. The framing is also troublesome. In a more reasonable world, I might expect abortion opponents to be included by the author in those who should oppose mass surveillance.

>Lawmakers who support reproductive rights must recognize that abortion access and mass surveillance are incompatible.

Putting aside the issue of abortion, it should be plain to see how mass surveillance is incompatible with basic civil liberties. Instead the inflammatory issue is used as a wedge.

It is disappointing to see activists playing narrowly, rather than speaking to the broader underlying principles.

So how does this work? If you live in Texas then you can still be punished for getting an abortion in another state, where it's legal? What kind of Dred Scott bullshit is this?