For the first time since Texas’ heartbeat abortion ban was signed into law, a judge has ruled against it, asserting that it is too restrictive. Hours after the ruling, however, interim Texas Attorney General, John Scott, filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court.
State District Judge Jessica Mangrum ruled in favor of five women who filed a lawsuit against the state over its restrictive abortion law. Unlike the several other lawsuits that have been brought forth since SB 8 went into effect, this suit aimed to amend the law, rather than repeal it entirely.
The ruling created a temporary exemption for medical providers to perform abortions when, in their “good faith judgment,” the pregnancy meets any of the following criteria:
“[A] physical medical condition or complication of pregnancy that poses a risk of infection, or otherwise makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe for the pregnant person; a physical medical condition that is exacerbated by pregnancy, cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy, or requires recurrent invasive intervention; and/or a fetal condition where the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy and sustain life after birth.”
-Temporary Injunction Order
Exemptions Provided by the Texas Heartbeat Act
The state law exacted last year outlines exemptions for medical emergencies, stipulating that a medical provider has the right to perform an abortion past six-weeks gestation when “the physician [believes] that a medical emergency necessitated the abortion.”
Despite this, Judge Mangrum found that “there is uncertainty regarding whether the medical exception to Texas’s abortion bans” would permit a physician to perform an abortion when, “in the physician’s good faith judgment and in consultation with the pregnant person, a pregnant person has a physical emergent medical condition.”
The defendants in the case, AG Paxton, the Texas Medical Board (TMB), and Stephen Brint Carlton, the Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, argued in their response to the plaintiffs’ original complaint that the law provides exemptions for medical emergencies, and allows medical professionals to use their judgment to determine when the procedure may be medically necessary.
“When this exception applies, the physician is required to perform ‘the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless’ that manner would create ‘a greater risk of the pregnant female’s death’ or ‘a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.'”
-Defendants’ Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and Response to Plantiffs’ Application for Temporary Injunction
The defendants added that the plantiffs’ request to “’clarify’ the scope of the medical exception by adopting a new version that includes ‘any emergent medical conditions that pose a risk to pregnant people’s lives or health (including their fertility).’ . . . would, for example, permit abortions for pregnant females with medical conditions ranging from a headache to feelings of depression.”
In response to the judge’s temporary injunction, the office of the Attorney General filed an appeal directly with the state supreme court and released a statement explaining that “While a district judge’s ruling attempted to block the state’s enforcement of Texas pro-life laws, this filing stays the ruling pending a decision by the Texas Supreme Court. Texas pro-life laws are in full effect. This judge’s ruling is not.”
Interim AG Scott argued that the exemptions exist under the law because “protecting the health of mothers and babies is of paramount importance to the people of Texas.” He called this “a moral principle enshrined in the law which states that an abortion may be performed under limited circumstances, such as in the event of “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy” that places the pregnant woman “at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
The office of the Attorney General asserted that it would continue to enforce the law as it was enacted by the state legislature.
This piece first appeared at TPUSA.
