Emergency Record

A group of abortion providers told the Supreme Court on Monday that a Texas law that prohibits abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected at any time, if allowed to take effect on Wednesday, would “immediately and disastrously reduce abortions in Texas. Chance”.them Ask the justice Intervene in emergency situations and prevent the enforcement of the law, while questions about its constitutionality are brought in lower courts.

The request was made more than a month before the start of the new term of the Supreme Court. The judges will review the 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi. The case challenged the court’s Rowe v. Wade with Family Planning v. Casey. roe with Casey It is believed that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion before the fetus leaves the womb-a benchmark, called viability, which occurs around 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Has been widely regarded as the Roberts Court’s first major test of abortion since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September 2020. However, Texas’ The case soared to the court on Monday and was called The whole woman’s health v. Jackson, Involving an abortion law that is even stricter than the disputed law Dobbs And you can preview the judge’s position on this issue.

The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, signed the Texas law called SB 8, On May 19th. The law prohibits doctors from performing abortions after detecting a fetal heartbeat, including heart activity that occurs around the sixth week of pregnancy. The law also allows individuals to sue anyone who offers or “helps and abets” an abortion. Individuals who successfully file a lawsuit have the right to charge $10,000 or more from individuals found to be illegal.

The abortion provider went to Texas federal court in July to challenge the law before its effective date on September 1. They sued a state judge, county court clerk, and anti-abortion activist Mark Dickson (Mark Dickson). The challenger believes that if the law goes into effect on Wednesday, they may sue abortion providers.

On August 25, the district court rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant quickly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and asked the court to stop other district court proceedings, including the challenger’s initial injunction hearing originally scheduled for August 30. The Fifth Circuit approved the defendant’s request to shelve the district court proceedings and rejected the challenger’s request to expedite the appeal, prompting the challenger to come to the Supreme Court on Monday.

In a 37-page document submitted on Monday, the challenger emphasized that if it is allowed to take effect on Wednesday, Texas law will prohibit “care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients (six weeks or more of pregnancy). People)”. )” and may force many abortion clinics to close. In addition, the challenger added that the six-week period is “during pregnancy, the state must not prohibit patients from deciding whether to terminate the pregnancy. The challenger argued that even Texas admitted that the abortion ban conflicted with the Supreme Court’s precedent. They concluded that the case really boils down to whether Texas can pass a six-week ban. Perform “outsourcing” to individuals to bypass this unconstitutional prohibition.

The challenger further argued that judges can prevent the enforcement of the law without having to shake their hands on the substantive issues of potential disputes. “The injunction application may be approved,” they wrote, “but it will not express the court’s views on the merits of preventing the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional statutes.” Here, they point out that if the court does not take action, “Texas women get legal The right to abortion” will be “in danger for several months or longer” and the lawsuit will be heard in court. The challenger suggested that if the judge does not want to go that far, the court can cancel the Fifth Circuit’s order and allow the district court to continue to consider pending motions to block law enforcement.

The abortion provider’s request was first submitted to Judge Samuel Alito, who handled the Texas emergency request. Alito can act on its own request, or, more often in high profile requests, submit it to the full court.

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.