Judge Says Texas Abortion Law Enforcement Provisions Violate State Constitution


A Texas judge ruled on Thursday that parts of the state law restricting abortion are unconstitutional and should not be enforced, but did not issue an injunction blocking it.

District Judge David Peeples said law enforcement mechanisms denied due process and violated the Texas state constitution.

The controversial law bans all abortions after detection of fetal heart activity. This stage usually occurs around six weeks into the pregnancy, a time when many do not yet know they are pregnant.

Peeples challenged the law allowing anyone to sue abortion providers and others who ‘aid and abet’ those who break the law without plaintiffs first having to prove they were harmed by such actions. Texas law allows successful plaintiffs to collect summary judgment of $10,000 plus legal fees from those they are suing.

If they lose the case, in the meantime, plaintiffs are not required to pay the other person’s legal fees. Critics have blasted this provision as placing a premium on abortion providers.

“SB 8 grants 21 million Texans the power to bring cases without any guidance, supervision or selection,” Peeples wrote in its order.

“There is no direction in the law and no direction from any official. Nothing prevents an ideologically motivated billionaire from Texas or another state from setting up an enforcement system by locating a few volunteer Texans who live in favorable counties have a place to sue in their home counties and enforce SB 8 across Texas,” he added.

The case Peeples was considering had been consolidated from more than a dozen initially separate cases that all sought to declare the law unconstitutional and block the anti-abortion organization Texas Right to Life from suing the many complainants, the American statesman from Austin reported.

Peeples acknowledged that elements of the law are unconstitutional. The law is still in effect, however, as the case focused only on the plaintiffs in the case and Texas Right to Life. Despite the limited effects of this decision, the American statesman noted that it could have a wider impact in the future.

Jennifer Ecklund, a lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs in this case, said: “This decision confirms what (our clients) have been trying to say, which is that they are good people who do their jobs and try to help people. Pregnant Texans when they need it.”

Texas Right to Life spokeswoman Kimberlyn Schwartz said, “The abortion industry lawsuit abuses the court system and turns this court into just a platform to air criticism of the pro-abortion law. boldest life to take effect since Roe v. Wade.”

In September, Texas’ abortion law was challenged by the Justice Department, which sued Texas, arguing in a lawsuit that the law was unconstitutional and violated Supreme Court precedent.

“The law is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” the United States Attorney General said. Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandThe FBI arrests the head of Oath Keepers on January 6. Thousands of federal detainees to be freed this week under Trump-signed law Dangers of human trafficking and Biden’s border policy MORE said at the time.


Comments are closed.