Advertisement
Advertisement

“From the moment SB 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” Pitman said, using the abbreviation for Senate Bill 8, the law’s official name.

“This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

In recent years, similar laws have been passed in other states but were struck down because they violated US Supreme Court precedent from Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, at around 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The Texas law, which thus far is the most restrictive in the country, is unique in that it empowers anyone to file a lawsuit against a person who has assisted in an abortion. They can be rewarded with $10,000 for cases that lead to prosecution, prompting charges that the law encourages Texans to act as vigilantes.

As Texas can still appeal Pitman’s order, the case may end up in front of the Supreme Court.

US attorney general Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling as “a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law.”

He added: “It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution. We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them.”

Judicial intervention

The nine-justice Supreme Court, with its clear conservative majority, cited procedural issues when it decided last month against intervening to block the law, as pro-choice advocates had requested. It did not rule on the merits of the case.

The court had already agreed to review a restrictive Mississippi law that could also provide an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The justices’ declining to block the Texas law prompted the Biden administration to enter the fray, citing its interest in upholding Americans’ constitutional rights.

In court arguments Friday, the US government described the ban as “a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution.”

Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General’s Office accused the government of “inflammatory rhetoric” and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent.

But Judge Pitman retorted: “If the state’s so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman’s access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?” He was referring to the clause allowing everyday people to file lawsuits over abortions in Texas.

My body, my choice

Tens of thousands of women took to the streets across the United States at the weekend in protests aimed at countering the conservative drive to restrict abortion access.

Pro-abortion advocates have called on Congress to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law, so as to protect it from any possible reversal by the Supreme Court.

A bill to that effect was adopted two weeks ago in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, but has no chance of passing the Senate where Republicans have enough votes to block it.

Then-president Donald Trump’s appointment of three conservative justices to the Supreme Court emboldened local conservative elected officials across the country to embark on an anti-abortion offensive.

If the high court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, every state would be free to ban or allow abortions.

That would mean 36 million women in 26 states—nearly half of American women of reproductive age—would likely lose the legal right to an abortion, according to a Planned Parenthood report.

Read more from Americas
Advertisement