Federal judge blocks part of Texas abortion law

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske

Los Angeles Times

Some controversial new Texas abortion restrictions are unconstitutional and will not take effect as scheduled on Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Monday.

“Today’s ruling marks an important victory for Texas women and sends a clear message to lawmakers: It is unconstitutional for politicians to pass laws that take personal, private decisions away from women and their doctors,” said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

abortionAfter Texas lawmakers approved the new restrictions this summer, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers challenged them in court, arguing that they unfairly limited medication-induced abortion and forced doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital near the abortion clinic where they work, in effect closing a third of clinics statewide.

Opponents did not challenge one of the most controversial provisions of the new law, which bans abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and is still scheduled to take effect Tuesday.

The Texas attorney general’s office argued that the new provisions protected women and fetuses.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said in his ruling that the admitting-privileges requirement violated the rights of doctors to do what they thought was best for patients. But the judge said restrictions on medication-induced abortions should stand “except when a physician finds such an abortion necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican campaigning for governor, made no personal comment Monday, but a spokeswoman for his office, Lauren Bean, said the state had already filed an appeal of Yeakel’s ruling with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

“As everyone – including the trial court judge – has acknowledged, this is a matter that will ultimately be resolved by the appellate courts or the U.S. Supreme Court,” Bean said in a statement.

Heather Busby, executive director of Austin-based NARAL Pro Choice Texas, said opponents of the law were “very pleased” that the judge had ruled against the provision requiring admitting privileges.

“This is one of the most dangerous provisions of the law because it would have closed clinics, leaving 22,000 women without access to care,” Busby said, adding that she was “disappointed it wasn’t a more broad ruling.”

Busby said she hoped the appeals court would uphold the judge’s ruling limiting the law.

“Our hope is that the 5th Circuit will look at how other jurisdictions have ruled on this and how damaging it can be for women, and not put politics or personal beliefs before the law,” she said.

Similar admitting-privileges requirements were blocked as a result of challenges in Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota and Wisconsin before they took effect. State courts in North Dakota and Oklahoma have struck down restrictions on medication abortion.

Mississippi passed a law similar to the Texas restrictions last year. It faced a similar legal challenge before a federal judge blocked the law pending a trial in March. Mississippi’s attorney general asked the 5th Circuit to lift a temporary stay and allow the law to be enforced in the interim, but the court refused.

In Texas, unlike Mississippi, the judge’s order is a final decision, meaning an appeal to the 5th Circuit would require a review on the legality of the law itself, not just an injunction to block it.

“We’re optimistic that they will share our opinion on this issue,” said Emily Horne, a legislative associate at Houston-based Texas Right to Life.

Horne said supporters of the new law were not surprised by the judge’s ruling Monday, noting that the judge had ruled against a law requiring sonograms before abortions two years ago. That ruling was eventually upheld by the 5th Circuit on appeal.

The proposed restrictions drew national attention this summer when state Sen. Wendy Davis staged a daylong filibuster in an attempt to block them in June. Davis, a Democrat, is also running for governor.

The filibuster forced Republican Gov. Rick Perry to call a second special legislative session, where the Republican-controlled Legislature eventually passed the law.

“Today’s decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren’t exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently,” Perry said in a statement Monday. “We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he hoped the appeals court would uphold the state’s “reasonable” law.

“Texas passed common-sense legislation to protect the health of women and their unborn children. This law is constitutional and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting the life and health of the mother and child,” the senator said in a statement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • AndyBlue

    Those poor people of Texas have no idea how much this fiasco is costing them.

    One would think they would be more concerned with having the most children in the United States suffering from malnutrition.

    But they aren't. Its a shame and a disgrace.

    • Anonymous

      Right because that has nothing to do with the fact they are the majority of the American/Mexican border with illegal immigrants pouring in.

      But you’re so right, being DEAD is much better than a temporary and fixable condition such as malnutrition. *sarcasm*

      The only thing blocked in this that abortionists aren’t required to have admitting priveledges to hospitals, you know, in case something goes wrong with an abortion. That sounds safe! Yay they’re totally protecting women! *more sarcasm*

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.