Judge orders Texas to suspend new law banning most abortions

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ordered Texas to suspend the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S., calling it an “offensive deprivation” of a constitutional right by banning most abortions in the nation’s second-most populous state since September.

The order Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman is the first legal blow to the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8, which until now had withstood a wave of early challenges. In the weeks since the restrictions took effect, Texas abortion providers say the impact has been “exactly what we feared.”

In a 113-page opinion, Pitman took Texas to task over the law, saying Republican lawmakers had “contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme” by leaving enforcement solely in the hands of private citizens, who are entitled to collect $10,000 in damages if they bring successful lawsuits against abortion providers who violate the restrictions.

The law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortions once cardiac activity is detected, which is usually around six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant.

“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” wrote Pitman, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama.

“That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

But even with the law on hold, abortion services in Texas may not instantly resume because doctors still fear that they could be sued without a more permanent legal decision. Planned Parenthood said it was hopeful the order would allow clinics to resume abortion services as soon as possible.

Texas officials swiftly told the court of their intention to seek a reversal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously allowed the restrictions to take effect.

The lawsuit was brought by the Biden administration, which has said the restrictions were enacted in defiance of the U.S. Constitution. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the order “a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law.”

The law had been in effect since Sept. 1.

“For more than a month now, Texans have been deprived of abortion access because of an unconstitutional law that never should have gone into effect. The relief granted by the court today is overdue, and we are grateful that the Department of Justice moved quickly to seek it,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, said the order was not unexpected.

“This is ultimately the legacy of Roe v. Wade, that you have activist judges bending over backwards, bending precedent, bending the law, in order to cater to the abortion industry,” said Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the group. “These activist judges will create their conclusion first: that abortion is a so-called constitutional right and then work backwards from there.”

Abortion providers say their fears have become reality in the short time the law has been in effect. Planned Parenthood says the number of patients from Texas at its clinics in the state decreased by nearly 80% in the two weeks after the law took effect.

Some providers have said that Texas clinics are now in danger of closing while neighboring states struggle to keep up with a surge of patients who must drive hundreds of miles. Other women, they say, are being forced to carry pregnancies to term.

Other states, mostly in the South, have passed similar laws that ban abortion within the early weeks of pregnancy, all of which judges have blocked. A 1992 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

But Texas’ version had so far outmaneuvered the courts because it leaves enforcement to private citizens to file suits, not prosecutors, which critics say amounts to a bounty.

“This is not some kind of vigilante scheme,” said Will Thompson, counsel for the Texas Attorney General’s Office, while defending the law to Pitman last week. “This is a scheme that uses the normal, lawful process of justice in Texas.”

The Texas law is just one that has set up the biggest test of abortion rights in the U.S. in decades, and it is part of a broader push by Republicans nationwide to impose new restrictions on abortion.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court began a new term, which in December will include arguments in Mississippi’s bid to overturn 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to an abortion.

Last month, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Texas law in allowing it to remain in place. But abortion providers took that 5-4 vote as an ominous sign about where the court might be heading on abortion after its conservative majority was fortified with three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

Ahead of the new Supreme Court term, Planned Parenthood on Friday released a report saying that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, 26 states are primed to ban abortion. This year alone, nearly 600 abortion restrictions have been introduced in statehouses nationwide, with more than 90 becoming law, according to Planned Parenthood.

Texas officials argued in court filings that even if the law were put on hold temporarily, providers could still face the threat of litigation over violations that might occur in the time between a permanent ruling.

At least one Texas abortion provider has admitted to violating the law and been sued — but not by abortion opponents. Former attorneys in Illinois and Arkansas say they sued a San Antonio doctor in hopes of getting a judge who would invalidate the law.

1 Like

These piece of shit Democrat federal judges always undo whatever they don’t like. Of course, we haven’t seem a single Republican judge do a fucking thing about the bullshit vaccine mandates. Same for those spineless pieces of shit in Congress. Anyone here still donating money to the GOP would be better served by burning their cash in the backyard.

3 Likes

Soros is getting his money’s worth.

What’s the point in having our elected state representatives create laws if unelected judges can just shut them down?

1 Like

Politicians simply talk and talk and talk …

Why isn’t "MY BODY , MY CHOICE " applicable here ?? :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

Because they are obozo appointees and never mess with the half black man . :nauseated_face:

It’s just been overturned by another Judge, therefore Texas can continue to PROTECT the lives of the most innocent as they slumber in the womb. These filthy sluts have NO RIGHT to MURDER their OWN children, there is ZERO in The Constitution that says a woman has a RIGHT to MURDER her OWN children.

If these filthy sluts don’t want to get pregnant they have TWO simple choices:

Use Contraception OR keep their legs closed.

1 Like

If state reps pass unconstitutional law, then that’s the judges job….:wink:

Or go to a neighboring state for their needs….

Yes because murderers have a pathological NEED to murder and are ONLY stopped when FORCE steps in to FORCIBLY STOP them.

So these common sluts if FORCED to stop murdering in one State will like for example Ted Bundy then go to another State to continue their NEED to murder SOME of these common sluts are EXACTLY LIKE Ted Bundy in the sense they are literal Serial Killers who have murdered MULTIPLE of the most innocent as they slumbered in the womb and therefore they SHOULD themselves be executed like other Serial Killers are in general executed ditto for Abortion Doctors and Nurses because THEY also are Serial Killers and they too should be Executed.

1 Like

Texas Abortion Law to Remain in Effect, Federal Appeals Court Rules

By BRITTANY BERNSTEIN

October 14, 2021 10:01 PM

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said Thursday it will allow Texas’s heartbeat abortion law, which allows private citizens to sue providers who perform abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, to remain in effect while it considers an appeal of a judge’s order blocking the new law.

The court issued a 2–1 order siding with the state of Texas, refusing the Justice Department’s request to reinstate an earlier court ruling that had blocked enforcement of the law. The order was backed by Judges James C. Ho, who was nominated by Donald Trump, and Catharina Haynes, who was nominated by George W. Bush. Judge Carl E. Stewart, a nominee of Bill Clinton, dissented.

Thursday’s decision comes after the same panel last week issued a temporary decision to reinstate the law after a federal judge in Austin temporarily halted the ban.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman had granted the Biden administration’s request to temporarily block enforcement of the abortion ban and denied the state’s request to pause his ruling pending appeal, saying “this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

“A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established,” Pitman wrote in a 113-page ruling. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

However, less than 48 hours after Pitman issued his ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court put the order on hold and reinstated the law pending further review.

The ruling comes after the Justice Department sued Texas on September 9 and sought a temporary injunction against the law. The DOJ argued during a hearing earlier this month that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Department attorney Brian Netter called the law an “unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice.”

The legal debate over the law focuses on a provision that allows any individual to sue anyone who knowingly performs or aids in an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected, removing the responsibility of enforcement from the state’s executive branch and placing it into the hands of citizens. Plaintiffs can earn up to $10,000 in damages through litigation.

The Supreme Court declined to block the law last month in a 5–4 decision. However, it did not rule on whether the law or its enforcement mechanism is constitutional.

You may call it whatever you like, but you’re also numbered with those who are always claiming to be the party of law and order, always reminding people that we are a nation of laws. And yet, there is no law that abortion is murder……:roll_eyes:

How is it not murder? It has eyes, A nervous system, lips, feelings. It’s own individual dna

1 Like

Should we be allowed to kill you? Just say the word! Its people like you where abortions are needed and become useful. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

1 Like

Seems a judge has spoken.

These ho’s model themselves after the nasty stinky bitch Whoopi Goldberg . My God 7 Abortions before hitting 25 , the most astounding fact was the were 7 men willing to have their D fall off placing it in the bottomless dark tomb .

1 Like