Judge Blocks Texas Anti-Abortion Law

Pro-choice activists rally in June of 2016 in Washington, D.C. to prepare for 
the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion access. Photo: Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a bill called SB 8. That law comprised a ban on fetal tissue donation by requiring all tissue obtained during an abortion to be buried or cremated. It also bans dilation and evacuation, which is the safest and most common procedure for performing second-trimester abortions. More disturbingly, the law doesn’t make any exceptions for rape or incest.

The law met with immediate resistance in the form of a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood and a number of other reproductive health providers.. The plaintiffs argue that SB 8 would deny women access to a safe procedure.

On August 31, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel issued a 14-day injunction that prevents the state from outlawing dilation and evacuation.

Courts have blocked similar laws in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

In his ruling, Yeakel wrote, “The act leaves that woman and her physician with abortion procedures that are more complex, risky, expensive, difficult for many women to arrange, and often involve multi-day visits to physicians, and overnight hospital stays.”

The Texas law uses the non-medical and emotionally loaded term “dismemberment abortion” to describe the dilation and evacuation procedure, in which forceps and other instruments are used to perform the abortion.

Naturally, Texas Right to Life had something to say about the injunction. In a statement, the group said, “The abortion clinic lawyers are attempting to frame this lawsuit on how SB 8 will affect Texas women and the abortion industry, however, the important question before the court is whether this type of procedure is something Texas has the right to prohibit.”

The statement continued, “While some Pro-Lifers may be tempted to despair at today’s ruling, this is the first step in a longer and consequential legal battle over this dynamic and historic legislation.” 

Another hearing is set for September 14, in which the merits of continuing the injunction will be discussed. In that hearing, the plaintiffs and defendants will argue whether the law is unconstitutional.