The Columbus Dispatch

Supreme Court divides 5-4 on Texas abortion law

- Jessica Gresko

WASHINGTON – 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 who sought to block enforcemen­t of the law, which went into effect 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 effect.

The 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 definitively 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. All four dissenting justices wrote separate statements expressing 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 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 five votes to halt the Texas law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her conservati­ve colleagues’ decision “stunning.”

“Presented with an applicatio­n to enjoin a flagrantly 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.

President Joe Biden on Thursday blasted the ruling and said in a statement that his administra­tion will launch a “whole-of-government effort to respond to this decision” and look at “what steps the federal government can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that the Justice Department was “deeply concerned” about the Texas law and “evaluating all options to protect the constituti­onal rights of women, including access to an abortion.”

Texas lawmakers wrote the law to evade federal court review by allowing private citizens to bring lawsuits in state court against anyone involved in an abortion, other than the patient. Other abortion laws are enforced by state and local officials, 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 first stage of pregnancy.

After a federal appeals court refused to allow a prompt review of the law before it took effect, 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 fighting 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.

Anti-abortion groups cheered the court’s action. “We are celebratin­g this decision for what it is, baby steps in the right direction toward the obvious conclusion that Roe is fatally flawed and must go,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, in a statement.

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States