El Dorado News-Times

Court won’t stop Texas abortion ban

Clinics are allowed to sue

-

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place Texas’ ban on most abortions, offering only a glimmer of daylight for clinics in the state to challenge the nation’s most restrictiv­e abortion law.

The decision, little more than a week after the court signaled it would roll back abortion rights and possibly overturn its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, was greeted with dismay by abortion rights supporters but praise by opponents.

Five conservati­ve justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, formed a majority to limit who can be sued by the clinics, a result that both sides said probably will prevent federal courts from effectivel­y blocking the law.

Texas licensing officials may be sued, but not state court judges, court clerks or state Attorney General Ken Paxton, the court ruled. That seems to leave people free, under the unusual structure of the Texas law, to sue abortion clinics and anyone else who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after cardiac activity is detected in an embryo, around six weeks and before some women know they’re pregnant.

“The Supreme Court has essentiall­y greenlit Texas’s cynical scheme and prevented federal courts from blocking an unconstitu­tional law,” the Center for Reproducti­ve Rights, which represents the Texas clinics, said on Twitter.

The court acted more than a month after hearing arguments over the law, which makes no exceptions for rape or incest.

The law has been in place for about three months, since Sept. 1. The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide has stood since 1973.

President Joe Biden voiced concern over the high court decision to keep the Texas law in effect and restated his support for legislatio­n that has cleared the House of Representa­tives and would codify in federal law the abortion right now at risk.

“We have more work to do, but I will always stand with women to protect and defend their long-recognized, constituti­onal right under Roe v. Wade,” Biden said in a statement.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has consistent­ly voted against abortion rights, did not mention Roe in his main opinion for the court Friday. Gorsuch is one of the Trump appointees, along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Abortion providers will now attempt to run the same legal gantlet that has previously frustrated them. The federal judge who already has once blocked the law, known as S.B. 8, almost certainly will be asked to do so again. Then his decision would be reviewed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has twice voted to allow enforcemen­t of the abortion ban.

In any case, it all could return to the justices, and so far there have not been five votes on the nine-member court to put the law on hold while the legal fight plays out.

“The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a separate opinion Friday.

The court’s conservati­ve majority also seems likely to roll back abortion rights in a Mississipp­i case that was argued last week, although that decision is not expected until spring.

If Roe is overruled, the fight over the Texas law would be largely beside the point because Texas is one of 12 states with a trigger law that would ban abortion in a post-Roe world.

Friday’s high court ruling came a day after a state court judge in Texas r uled that the law’s enforcemen­t, which rewards lawsuits against violators by awarding judgments of $10,000, is unconstitu­tional yet left the law in place.

Critics of the decision also said it would encourage other states to adopt copycat laws on abortion and allow for attacks on other constituti­onal rights.

The legal fight over the Texas law is focused on its unusual structure and whether it improperly limits how the law can be challenged in court. Texas lawmakers handed responsibi­lity for enforcing the law to private citizens, rather than state officials.

The law authorizes lawsuits against clinics, doctors and others who perform or facilitate a banned abortion. The case raised a complex set of issues about who, if anyone, can sue over the law in federal court, the typical route for challenges to abortion restrictio­ns. Indeed, federal courts routinely put a hold on similar laws, which rely on traditiona­l enforcemen­t by state and local authoritie­s.

The Supreme Court voted Friday 8 to 1 in favor of allowing the clinics’ lawsuit against the ban to proceed, with only Justice Clarence Thomas voting the other way. But the court was sharply divided, 5-4, on the knotty issue of whom to target with a court order that ostensibly tries to block the law. The justices ruled that Texas licensing officials may be sued, but dismissed claims against state court judges, court clerks and the state attorney general.

 ?? ?? Barbie H. leads a protest against the six-week abortion ban on Sept. 1 at the Capitol in Austin. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)
Barbie H. leads a protest against the six-week abortion ban on Sept. 1 at the Capitol in Austin. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States