But now the U.S. Supreme Court has Roe v. Wade and paved the way for Texas to ban abortion in almost every case. Victims of domestic violence are among the least likely to be able to travel out of state or safely self-administer a medical abortion at home, leaving them with no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term. The state`s ban on abortion makes no exceptions to rape or incest. “The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts are powerless to protect constitutional rights in the face of a devious state system that hands over the state`s enforcement power to individuals,” said Marc Hearron, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued the case. “The court did support Texas` efforts to undermine the U.S. Constitution.” In a second disagreement, Justice Stephen G. Breyer that the Court of Appeals` action amounted to contempt of his December court`s decision. “The Court of Appeal,” he wrote, “ignored our decision.” Sotomayor said that, while she agreed with the court that allowed abortion providers to pursue their challenges, she disagreed with “the court`s dangerous departure from its precedents that determine that federal courts can and must grant relief when a state enacts a law that limits the exercise of a constitutional right and seeks to escape judicial review.” Last year, lawmakers passed a so-called trigger bill that would take effect 30 days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which criminalizes abortions. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, said he was “stunned” to see Roberts unable to get other conservatives on the court to subscribe to such a fundamental premise of constitutional law. He called the decision “radical,” saying it had “incredibly disturbing implications for the ability of federal courts to sweep aside state laws that interfere with our constitutional rights and, more importantly, for the ability of those whose rights are violated to have their day in court.
Texas Right to Life, the state`s largest anti-abortion group, celebrated the decision. Abortions up to about six weeks of pregnancy could resume at some Texas clinics for now, after a Harris County District Court judge on Tuesday issued an injunction blocking an abortion ban pending in Roe v. Wade was in full force. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court dismissed the most important part of the center`s case, ruling that providers could not sue the state`s classes of judges and clerks or the attorney general. “We are in a moment of crisis not only for reproductive rights, but also for our justice system and the rule of law,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “With this verdict, the fragment of this case that we had left has disappeared. An unconstitutional ban on abortion after six weeks continues unchecked in the state of Texas. The courts have allowed Texas to nullify a constitutional right. We will continue to do everything in our power to correct this injustice. In other jurisdictions, however, district attorneys may take the opposite approach, either because of personal anti-abortion leanings or because of political pressure. Earlier this year, a Starr County woman was charged with murder after a “self-induced abortion.” Supporters fear that more cases could emerge, even though Texas` trigger law prohibits prosecuting the person who had the abortion. And a state official promised to draft a bill that would allow county prosecutors to pursue cases outside their districts.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, also issued a statement. “The courts have allowed Texas to nullify a constitutional right,” she said. “We will continue to do everything in our power to correct this injustice. On Friday, the judges handed down a verdict that appeared to be consistent with Stone`s “ordinary English interpretation” of the law. In a divided opinion, four of the court`s conservatives — Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Judge Samuel Alito — left sellers with only one weak way to challenge the law. Justice Clarence Thomas went further, stating that in his view, suppliers could not challenge the law at all.