Search
Close this search box.

BIG DEVELOPMENT: High Court Divides 5-4 To Leave Texas Abortion Law In Place


A deeply divided Supreme Court is allowing a Texas law that bans most abortions to remain in force, for now stripping most women of the right to an abortion in the nation’s second-largest state.

The court voted 5-4 to deny an emergency appeal from abortion providers and others that sought to block enforcement of the law that went into effect Wednesday. But the justices also suggested that their order likely isn’t the last word on whether the law can stand because other challenges to it can still be brought.

The Texas law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and before many women know they’re pregnant.

It is the strictest law against abortion rights in the United States since the high court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and part of a broader push by Republicans nationwide to impose new restrictions on abortion. At least 12 other states have enacted bans early in pregnancy, but all have been blocked from going into effect.

The high court’s order declining to halt the Texas law came just before midnight Wednesday. The majority said those bringing the case had not met the high burden required for a stay of the law.

“In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts,” the unsigned order said.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented along with the court’s three liberal justices. Each of the four dissenting justices wrote separate statements expressing their disagreement with the majority.

Roberts noted that while the majority denied the request for emergency relief “the Court’s order is emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue.”

The vote in the case underscores the impact of the death of the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last year and then-president Donald Trump’s replacement of her with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Had Ginsburg remained on the court there would have been five votes to halt the Texas law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her conservative colleagues’ decision “stunning.” “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand,” she wrote.

Texas lawmakers wrote the law to evade federal court review by allowing private citizens to bring civil lawsuits in state court against anyone involved in an abortion, other than the patient. Other abortion laws are enforced by state and local officials, with criminal sanctions possible.

In contrast, Texas’ law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone involved in facilitating abortions. Among other situations, that would include anyone who drives a woman to a clinic to get an abortion. Under the law, anyone who successfully sues another person would be entitled to at least $10,000.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called the law “patently unconstitutional,” saying it allows “private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf.” And Justice Stephen Breyer said a “woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during” the first stage of pregnancy.

After a federal appeals court refused to allow a prompt review of the law before it took effect, the measure’s opponents sought Supreme Court review.

In a statement early Thursday after the high court’s action, Nancy Northup, the head of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion providers challenging the law, vowed to “keep fighting this ban until abortion access is restored in Texas.”

“We are devastated that the Supreme Court has refused to block a law that blatantly violates Roe v. Wade. Right now, people seeking abortion across Texas are panicking — they have no idea where or when they will be able to get an abortion, if ever. Texas politicians have succeeded for the moment in making a mockery of the rule of law, upending abortion care in Texas, and forcing patients to leave the state — if they have the means — to get constitutionally protected healthcare. This should send chills down the spine of everyone in this country who cares about the constitution,” she said.

Texas has long had some of the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions, including a sweeping law passed in 2013. The Supreme Court eventually struck down that law, but not before more than half of the state’s 40-plus clinics closed.

Even before the Texas case arrived at the high court the justices had planned to tackle the issue of abortion rights in a major case after the court begins hearing arguments again in the fall. That case involves the state of Mississippi, which is asking to be allowed to enforce an abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

(AP)



8 Responses

  1. Thank you President Donald Trump for appointing 3 conservative Judges, and saving countless innocent Texan embryos & lives.
    We love you President Donald Trump, and are voting for you President Donald Trump come November 5th, 2024.

  2. They have not stripped the “right” of most women to have abortions. They have stripped them of the ability to murder their babies in the womb after six weeks gestation.

  3. Chazal teach us that Yetziras haVlad is 40 days after conception.
    So, lihavdil, the Texas law’s six week rule is pretty on-target.

  4. Hakatan, 6 weeks of pregnancy is actually 4 weeks since conception, they count pregnancy weeks from last period, not gestation
    4×7=28 days
    Chazal do not say that within these 40 days it’s ok to have an abortion
    So from both points this Chagall here is not relevant
    Also they did not ban all abortions, but women should not go get their own children scraped out of their wombs just out of inconvenience

  5. They didn’t decide anything. All they did is say we’ll worry about this after the case is litigated in the lower courts. Perhaps they could have insisted that Texas post a bond to cover the cost of Texans needing to travel to another state for an abortion since if they decide against the law, that would be the only damages (if they granted a temporary injunction against the law and then upheld it would be very hard to undo the damages that had resulted).

    If the Supreme Court ends up by deciding this is a question of state laws, the “blues” have to decide if objecting is worth the effort since if abortion is a matter of state law, there is no chance of a future Congress banning abortion. As it now stands, the Federal ban on abortion rests on privacy grounds, ignoring both that abortion was clearly illegal (but not a serious crime) during the adoption of the constitutional provisions involved, and that reliance on the mother’s privacy rights ignored the baby’s constitutional rights. No other country or legal system sees abortion as a privacy issue rather than a civil rights issue.

  6. If a woman becomes pregnant through rape or incest, there are many rabonim who would allow an abortion and rightfully so. If you think such a pregnancy does not result in emotional illness, you are clueless.

  7. Akuperma, they didn’t say leave it to the lower courts, they simply said there is nobody for us to enjoin. Courts CAN’T “stay laws”. They can only enjoin specific parties from doing certain things. They can enjoin a state from prosecuting people under a certain law. But here the state isn’t planning to prosecute anyone. So whom should the court enjoin? Me?! You?! Every person in Texas?! So the Supreme Court said wait until someone files a suit, and then a court can enjoin that person from doing so.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts