Fogbow

Most Abortions in Texas Are Banned Again After Court Ruling
A federal appeals court panel temporarily reinstated the law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while it considers a district judge’s ruling.

By J. David Goodman
Oct. 8, 2021 Updated 11:31 p.m. ET

HOUSTON — A federal appeals court panel reinstated Texas’ restrictive abortion law late Friday, temporarily restoring a ban on virtually all procedures that had been blocked by a lower court two days earlier in a case brought by the Biden administration.

The decision by three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a terse two-page ruling granting a stay as it considers an appeal by the state of Texas, had been expected by many abortion providers. While at least six clinics in Texas had begun conducting abortions beyond the limits of the new law this week, most of the state’s roughly two dozen providers had opted not to take that step as the case moved through the courts.

“Tonight the Fifth Circuit has granted an administrative stay in the #SB8 case,” the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, wrote on Twitter on Friday night. “I will continue to fight to keep #Texas free from federal overreach.”

The law, which bans abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, at about six weeks of pregnancy, has altered the landscape for abortions in the nation’s second-most-populous state because of its unique structure, which bars state officials from enforcing its provisions, leaving that instead to private citizens.

The Biden administration sued to halt the law, and on Wednesday, a U.S. District Court judge in Austin, Robert L. Pitman, granted the Justice Department’s request to halt its enforcement. In his 113-page opinion, he wrote that because of the law, “women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their own lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution.”

In its brief ruling on Friday, the appeals court panel, made up of Judges Carl E. Stewart, Catharina Haynes and James C. Ho, called on lawyers for the Biden administration to respond to Texas’ appeal by Tuesday.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/us/t ... n-ban.html

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:49 am I bet there wasn't a 100+ page opinion on this court's anti-injunction.

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal is temporarily held in abeyance pending further order by this motions panel. Appellee is directed to respond to the emergency motion by 5 pm on Tuesday, October 12, 2021.
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s alternative motion for a temporary administrative stay pending the court’s consideration of the emergency motion is GRANTED.

Atticus Finch wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:01 pm I still believe that whole 5th Circuit should be moved to Kabul and renamed as the Supreme Court of Afghanistan.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:19 pm which means we know nothing until when? Next summer?

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:19 pm which means we know nothing until when? Next summer?

HHS issues new protections for Texas abortion providers, patients Sep 17, 2021 - Health

The new initiatives include: $10 million awarded to Every Body Texas, an organization that administers Title X funds to Texas providers, to "respond to the anticipated increase in clients’ needs for emergency contraception and family planning services."

Up to $10 million awarded in grants to any Title X services eligible applicant across the U.S. The funding is meant to expand access to emergency contraception and family planning services, and boost coverage for the expected influx of clients due to the Texas law.

Protections that bar recipients of federal public health funding from "discriminating in the employment, promotion or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel because the individual performed or assisted in the performance of an abortion."

Individuals who believe they may have been discriminated against in this capacity can file complaints to the HHS Office of Civil Rights.

Bolstered enforcement of medical providers' legal obligations to pregnant patients, which require appropriate medical screening, treatment and transfer if necessary, irrespective of state law.

"A physician’s professional and legal duty to provide medical treatment ... preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandate that might seek to prevent such treatment," the agency said.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:41 am “US Supreme Court says Texas abortion clinics can sue over law”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59381081

WASHINGTON — The chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows states to circumvent the courts as Texas did with its near-total abortion ban.

In a strongly worded opinion joined by the high court’s three liberal justices, Roberts wrote that the "clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court’s rulings." That, he said, undermines the Constitution and the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole.

The opinion was a remarkable plea by the chief justice to his colleagues on the court to resist the efforts by right-wing lawmakers to get around court decisions they dislike, in this case Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States, within limits. But in this case, his urgent request was largely ignored by the other justices on the court who were appointed by Republicans.

His point to them was that the court system should decide what the law is, and it should resist efforts like that of the Texas Legislature to get around the courts by limiting the ability of abortion providers to sue.