Abortion Laws

Abortion Bans Protested on the National Day of Action
Pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and ACLU held spirited protests on May 21, 2019 at the Supreme Courts, state houses, capitals and numerous other sites as part of the National Day of Action to Stop the Bans. Tens of thousands of protesters participated in rallies all across the nation and they could not come any later as GOP-ruled state Alabama had banned abortions almost on all cases and other states such as Mississippi, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia and Louisiana passed laws with stricter abortion laws, many of them have monikers such as "heart-beat laws". Missouri lawmakers passed a law to ban abortion after eight weeks.

Mixed Verdict on Abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court
Underlining the difficulty in reading minds of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, country's apex court on May 28, 2019 issued a mixed verdict on a 2016 Indiana law that had been signed the then-Governor Mike Pence. Without any comments, U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling to preserve parts of the law that would put strict requirements of disposing aborted fetal parts while allowing to retain the lower court ruling that had rejected the law's intention to ban abortion in case the baby was diagnosed with "down syndrome".

************************* Title X 
Trump Administration Issues Strong Anti-Abortion Rules
After a review process often called by critics as a "short-cut", Health and Human Services on February 22, 2019 published federal government's guidance on abortion on its own website. The rules call for banning any abortion referral by family services providers receiving federal taxpayer dollars. Also, there will be a clear financial separation between the family planning and other services, under the rules, from abortion providers if both are part of the same services provider. However, the new HHS rules will still allow providers to discuss abortion with their patients. At issue is $260 million a year grant for family-planning services, also known as Title X of the Public Health Services Act, that serve approximately 4 million women through independent clinics, many of them run by the Planned Parenthood. Although HHS has published the rules on its website, it has yet to publish it on the Federal Register without which the rules will not become official after a commentary period. Pre-issue review of the rules was anything but normal, and several Democratic lawmakers--including House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, Kamala Harris of California and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire--wrote a letter on February 15, 2019, decrying the review process.

California Takes the First Parting Shot against Trump Administration's New Title X Rules
California's Attorney-General Xavier Becerra on March 4, 2019 filed a lawsuit in the Northern District Court in California against Trump administration's new rules--issued February 22, 2019--to restrict women's access to abortion. According to the filing, Trump administration's Health and Human Services Department has violated Administrative Procedures Act and the U.S. Constitution by issuing the rule that "undermines clinically established standards of care, interferes with the patient-provider relationship, and contradicts a core purpose of the Title X program".

Federal Judge Blocks "Abortion Gag" Order
A federal rule issued on the HHS website on February 22, 2019 and promulgated in March 2019 that bans any referral to abortion for recipients of Title X federal funds to the tune of $286 million per year has been blocked by a federal judge in Washington, U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian of Yakima, Washington, on April 25, 2019 throughout the nation while the case proceeds through the court system.

Planned Parenthood Pulls out from Title X Program
After a federal appeals court based in San Francisco has decided to hear the appeals of a lower court ruling blocking the president's Title X directive beginning September 23, 2019, but let the directive go into effect in the interim, Planned Parenthood on August 19, 2019 has announced to abandon participation in Title X program altogether rather than, stated Acting President Alexis McGill Johnson, being "bullied into withholding abortion information from our patients". About 4 million people are served by the Title X program, and undermining this program will hamper the access of so many poor American women's access to quality healthcare. August 19, 2019 was the deadline set by the federal government for the providers to publicly affirm in complying the rule changes as condition of participating in the Title X program. Enforcement will begin on September 18, 2019. Texas will not have any effect due to the latest rule changes as in 2011, state legislature has passed measure to cut down the family planning budget by 66%, leading to the closure of 82 clinics. In 2013, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have been excluded from the state's low-income woman's health program. Texas has a state program now.

Appeals Court Upholds Trump Rules related to Title X
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on February 24, 2020 upheld Trump administration's rules to change various provisions of Title X. The 7-4 ruling paves the way for the new rules to go into effect on March 4, 2020, and will, for Title X recipients,

* Prohibit referring any patient to abortion services, leading to a "gag order"
* Preclude sharing facility space with any abortion provider

Title X, a 1970 law, already bans federal funding of abortion and its mission is to help women to have improved access to HIV testing, Cervical Cancer screening, family planning in areas other than "where abortion is a method of family planning".

Biden Admin Reverses Major Trump-era Rules

Biden administration on October 4, 2021 took steps to revoke the Trump-era rules governing federal money to clinics. The Trump-era rule changes to Title X prohibited any abortion-related counseling and required physical separation of federal grant recipients' facilities from abortion facilities. The new Title X rules will go into effect on November 8, 2021. 
************************* Title X 

******************** CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON ABORTION *********************

House Codifies Roe vs. Wade, Passes the Measure along Partisan Line

House of Representatives on September 24, 2021 passed the Women's Health Protection Act by 218-211 votes. The bill codifies the Roe vs. Wade, superseding the individual states' restrictive bills. 

House to Protect Inter-State Travel for Abortion

After Roe vs. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022 in the Dobbs vs. Jackson ruling, many GOP-led states are codifying ban on crossing the state lines to seek abortion in addition to pushing various versions of "trigger laws". U.S. House is pushing HR 8297, Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, to provide security to women and their families for safe access to abortion in states where such procedures are legal. The Dallas Morning News on July 15, 2022 reported in its print edition that the fate of HR 8297 faced an uncertain future in Senate. 

House Responds to Roe Fall by Passing Two Pro-abortion Bills

U.S. House of Representatives on July 15, 2022 passed two measures to strengthen the abortion rights nationally, providing the first broadest volley of responses since the June 24, 2022, Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe. The first measure, passed 219-210, will restore national access to abortion. The second measure, Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, will protect state line travel by women and girls to seek legal abortion. The second bill was passed by 223-205 votes. Rep. Henry Cuellar is the lone Lone Star Democrat to vote against the first measure, Women's Health Protection Act. Both bills face uncertain fate in the evenly divided Senate. 

******************** CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON ABORTION *********************

Maximum Number of Anti-Abortion Laws Passed in a Single Year

The Guttmacher Institute, a woman's rights and advocacy organization, reported on October 5, 2021 that this year alone 106 anti-abortion and abortion restriction laws were passed, marking the highest number of anti-abortion and abortion restriction laws in a single year. 

FDA Broadens Access to Abortion Pills

Food and Drug Administration on December 16, 2021 loosened the rules for access to abortion pills, with broadening the access to and allowing more pharmacies, including mail-order services, to deliver abortion pills such as mifeprex and misoprostol. Under the December 16, 2021, FDA order, consumers are not required to adhere to the existing rule of in-person pick-up from pharmacies. 

Mifepristone, or mifeprex, dilates the cervix and inhibits the action of pregnancy carrying hormone Progesterone. Misoprostol, typically taken a day or two later, causes contractions that empty the uterus. 

Abortion Opponents Tantalizingly Close to a Day without Roe

Abortion opponents, thousands in numbers, on January 21, 2022 participated in the annual March for Life rally at Washington D.C. with tremendous optimism that this might be year when the U.S. Supreme Court either would chip away or do away with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade. This year's March for Life rally was held a day before the 49th anniversary of the landmark law that had legalized abortions, and about 63 million legal abortions had taken place since then. The U.S. Supreme Court heard Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health on December 1, 2021. Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health is a Mississippi case that directly challenges the central tenets of Roe vs. Wade. U.S. Supreme Court is to rule on Roe vs. Wade in the summer of 2022, and conservative groups are pinning hopes on that ruling as a turning point for the abortion fight. 

Genesis of Roe vs. Wade

In 1970, a fresh graduate from the University of Texas Law School embarked upon a legal pursuit to challenge the abortion laws prevalent in the U.S. and Texas. Linda Coffee, the law school graduate, was looking for a pregnant woman who was seeking abortion to challenge the existing abortion laws. Coffee partnered with another U.T. law school graduate, Sarah Weddington, in what would be a potentially epoch-making journey in the history of abortion rights movement in the U.S. Linda Coffee filed the docket CA-3-3690-B with a $15 payment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 3, 1970. Coffee filed that docket as Roe vs. Wade, and Roe was Norma McCorvey, who, in later life, had oscillated between the abortion right and the right to life, eventually switching to anti-abortion camp. However, Norma McCorvey  was paid by an anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. Before her death, McCorvey recanted and supported women's right to abortion. The case filed by Linda Coffee ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to the January 22, 1973, historic ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. 

Most of the Abortions Happen from Pills, Research Shows

A Guttmacher Institute research, whose preliminary results have been shared publicly on February 24, 2022, shows that 54% of the abortions have been done with pills in 2020 compared to 44% in 2019. During the time of COVID-19 pandemic, millions of women counted on telehealth to access abortion pills. Abortion pills are becoming mainstay since the FDA has approved mifepristone in 2000. Biden administration in December 2021 made it even easier to get access to abortion pills. At least 16 states have bills in legislative bodies to make the access to abortion pills harder. Accessing to abortion pills via mail-order is outright banned in three states: Arizona, Arkansas and Texas. 

Most of the Pregnancy and Period Apps Lack Strong Privacy Protection

A study conducted by Mozilla Foundation shows that 18 out of 25 most popular apps lack strong privacy protections against any of the data related to period and pregnancy falling into the hands of law enforcement agencies, posing a grave threat against women seeking abortions, any relatives or friends providing help knowingly or unknowingly as well as abortion providers. Releasing the study findings on August 18, 2022, Ashley Boyd, Mozilla's vice president of advocacy, pointed out the "loopholes" that "fail to protect intimate data". 

********************************** RU-486 RULINGS ******************************

Federal Judges Issue Contrasting Rulings for Mifepristone

A Texas federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump, Matthew Kacsmaryk, on April 7, 2023 imposed an injunction, effective in seven days, on the use of Mifepristone. Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling is meant to effectively block FDA's approval of Mifepristone in 2000. Immediately in the aftermath, Washington State-based U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice ordered the Food and Drug Administration not to restrict the drug in 17 states. 

Biden Administration Appeals against Federal Judge's Ruling

U.S. DOJ on April 10, 2023 filed a certiorari appealing the ruling of U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who on April 7, 2023 dealt a severe jolt to the abortion right by halting the approval of widely used abortion medication Mifepristone. In 2000, Food and Drug Administration approved Mifepristone. The dismissal of the FDA's approval process, which is based on deliberative and comprehensive reviews, by a single federal judge is simply "extraordinary and unprecedented", according to the DOJ's filing before the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and therefore demands a hold as the case moves forward through the judicial cadence. 

In a separate filing on April 10, 2023, U.S. DOJ sought clarification from U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice regarding his April 7, 2023, ruling, instructing the FDA not to restrict the availability of Mifepristone in 17 states. 

The contradictory federal court rulings had put FDA in a bind.

Emergency Appeal to Supreme Court after not so Favorable Ruling from Appeals Court

On late April 12, 2023, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a split verdict narrowed the scope of ruling issued by a federal judge in Amarillo who had halted the FDA approval of the abortion drug Mifepristone, leading to the U.S. DOJ to file an emergency appeal on April 13, 2023 to the U.S. Supreme Court. The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based appellate court ruled 2-1 that Mifepristone would be available for now, but the period for which the medication could be taken would be shortened from the current first 10 weeks of pregnancy to 7 weeks, which was the case prior to a 2016 decision by the regulators. In addition, the appeals court ruling imposed another restriction by proscribing the current method of mail-in distribution without a visit to doctor's office, thus putting an extra burden for women and their families in rural areas even in those states where abortions remained legal. Erin Hawley, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom that had brought the lawsuit against Mifepristone, said that she was happy with the appeals court ruling and was not planning to file an appeal to restore U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling in its entirety. 

In the April 12, 2023, ruling Judges Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham ruled for the majority. Both judges were appointed by President Donald Trump. The lone dissenter, Judge Catharina Haynes, a George W. Bush appointee, was in favor of keeping the Mifepristone available in the marketplace as it's now.

Washington State Judge Clarifies His Ruling on Mifepristone

U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice on April 13, 2023 clarified his earlier ruling in response to a certiorari filed by the U.S. DOJ, stating that the availability of Mifepristone in 17 states should be on par as in January 2023. 

Supreme Court Halts Lower Courts' Decision on Abortion Medication

In a victory of sort for abortion right groups, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on April 14, 2023 issued a temporary hold on lower courts' rulings on Mifepristone. That means, for the time being, it's business as usual as far as the availability and scope of use of Mifepristone is concerned. The U.S. Supreme Court stay will stay until April 19, 2023, and Justice Samuel Alito has given both sides until April 18, 2023 to file their respective certioraris.  

On April 7, 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled the FDA's 2000 approval of Mifepristone invalid, setting an unprecedented course of collision with the federal government's drug regulatory agency. On April 12, 2023, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal from the U.S. to put a hold on Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling, and narrowed the scope of the use of Mifepristone. The three-judge panel shortened the number of weeks from the first 10 to the first seven weeks of pregnancy for Mifepristone use. The appeals court also has ordered that Mifepristone can only be dispensed by physicians and only after at least two in-person visits. 

Supreme Court Extends the Access at least for Another 48 Hours

U.S. Supreme Court on April 19, 2023 kept the access to Mifepristone unfettered at least through April 21, 2023, giving the ray of hope to Biden administration, abortion pill maker Danco Laboratories, abortion rights groups and millions of women. 

U.S. Supreme Court Keeps the Current Level of Mifepristone Access for Now

U.S. Supreme Court on April 21, 2023 has granted an emergency request by Biden administration and Danco Laboratories to keep Mifepristone accessible to millions of women and girls as it is as the administration's appeal against a lower court ruling proceeds in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The next hearing on the case will be held on May 17, 2023 at the New Orleans-based appeals court. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the majority of justices. Justice Alito said that the government couldn't show that there was a real harm if Mifepristone usage was reverted to pre-2016 loosening standard. In 2016, FDA allowed the medication abortion drug's use for the first 10 weeks, extending from seven weeks, as well as availability of the drug without a visit to a doctor and ability of patients to obtain it through mail-order. 

Appeals Panel's Harsh Questioning of FDA's Approval Process Portends Unfavorable Outcome

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 17, 2023 asked plenty of harsh questions on FDA's approval process, and even one judge, Judge James Ho, asking why FDA could no wrong. The panel is different from the one that ruled 2-1 on April 12, 2023, allowing the use of mifepristone in a more restricted manner along the practice effective until 2016 when the drug had been allowed for the first seven weeks of the pregnancy, three weeks shorter than present allowable timeline, and patients required two in-person visits before using the drug.  

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Mifepristone Case

After the August 16, 2023, ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had reversed the post-2016 loosening of the usage restrictions and ordered the availability and distribution of the abortion medication on par with the rules that existed between 2000 and 2016, it was transparent that the case and the battle over medicated abortion would be settled by the nation's apex court. On December 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case in the current term, potentially issuing a verdict in the summer of 2024 in the midst of a heated Presidential Election campaign where abortion would likely to play a determinative role. Mifepristone is one of the two-drug regimen used in the medicated abortion. The other drug is Misoprostol. 

********************************** RU-486 RULINGS ******************************

**************************** EMTLA ****************************
Appeals Court Rules against Requiring Hospitals to Provide Abortion Services
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on January 2, 2024 that the Biden administration didn't have right to require hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe vs. Wade June 2022, President Joe Biden signed a directive that required the hospitals to provide abortion services as a stabilizing factor. 
**************************** EMTLA ****************************

Biden Administration to Protect Privacy of Abortion Seekers 

Biden administration on April 22, 2024 finalized rules to protect the privacy of women who had crossed the state lines to seek reproductive services, including abortion. The rules are needed, according to abortion rights advocates, as GOP-ruled states are pursuing vindictive action against women--who might have gone to the Blue States to seek abortion--and their friends and families by trying to access the medical records from the medical providers or insurers. The rules are meant to strengthen the guardrails of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, to prevent the state, local and law enforcement authorities from forcing the medical services providers or insurers to share the medical information related to reproductive services in another state for civil, or criminal, or administrative cases. 

ALABAMA

Alabama Becomes the State with Almost Full Ban on Abortion
Alabama opened the first salvo in the war of a near-complete abortion ban that might be eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey on May 15, 2019 signed the nation's strictest anti-abortion law, making it a felony in almost all cases. However, Conservatives are relishing this opportunity to get any of the abortion cases land in the U.S. Supreme Court docket and the conservative majority of justices to deliver the dream verdict: overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Alabama's Restrictive Abortion Law Rejected by Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2019 rejected to take up the state of Alabama's appeal to lower court's ruling that had tossed out a controversial 2016 law that would all but ban the second-trimester abortions.

Alabama's New Abortion Law Blocked
A new Alabama abortion restriction law signed by Governor Kay Ivey in May 2019 was blocked by the U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson. Issuing his preliminary injunction on October 29, 2019, Judge Thompson said that the law "contravenes clear Supreme Court precedent" and would not go into effect November 15, 2019.

State Supreme Court's Ruling Blocks IVF Treatment

On February 16, 2024, Alabama Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision and accorded the frozen embryos the same status as personhood, leading to the likely suspension of the IVF treatment in the state.

Chilling Effect on IVF Clinic

The University of Alabama already paused on any IVF treatment after the state supreme court had ruled that frozen embryos were persons, according to the February 23, 2024, edition of The Dallas Morning News. 

In In Vitro Fertilization, eggs are fertilized externally, and the resulting embryos are used to help patients become pregnant. Usually, one cycle of IVF treatment requires two to three weeks. Most of the patients need more than one IVF treatment cycles to become pregnant. Embryos remaining after an IVF treatment cycle are stored for subsequent cycles, or donated, or discarded. Two lawsuits were filed in this case by three sets of parents after their frozen embryos at a fertility clinic were accidentally destroyed. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuits on, among other counts, the count of violating the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. A lower court judge tossed out the suit. However, Alabama Supreme Court thrust the case back to the national battlefield of abortion and reproductive rights movement. 

Alabama Governor Signs a Bill to Protect IVF Procedure

After the Alabama Supreme Court's February 16, 2024, ruling that personified an embryo, almost all of the fertilization clinics in the state stopped providing In-Vitro Fertilization, or IVF, treatment. Realizing the scale of adverse effect that it could have on young women's and their families' lives, Alabama legislature passed a bill aimed at protecting IVF providers and patients from civil or criminal liabilities if the embryos were damaged or destroyed. Governor Kay Ivey signed the legislative measure into law on March 6, 2024. 

ARIZONA


On January 13, 2014, the US Supreme Court refused to hear Arizona's appeal to a May 2013 ruling by the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals that called out a 2012 Arizona law, which banned abortion after 20 weeks of fertilization based on "fetal pain" and increased risks to women, as "unconstitutional". The Supreme Court verdict related only to the Arizona case.

Limits on Abortion Drug Upheld
In a setback to the Pro-Choice groups, a federal judge, U.S. District Judge David C. Bury, on March 31, 2014 upheld a strict Arizona law that would ban an abortion drug, RU-486, after the seventh week of pregnancy. Current rule allows women to take the drug through the ninth week of pregnancy.

More than a Century-and-half-old Abortion Law Restored by Judge

A law passed as part of the so called "Howell Code", a set of laws designed to serve as a key backbone of governance, by the First Arizona Territorial Legislature in 1864 was revived by an Arizona judge on September 23, 2022. This anti-abortion, archaic law was passed before the 1912 birth of the state of Arizona. After the historic 1973 Roe vs. Wade, an injunction was imposed on this law. Still, Arizona legislature reenacted the law in 1977. After the June 24, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court verdict to overturn the Roe, Arizona Attorney-General Mark Brnovich asked the Pima County Superior Court Judge  Kellie Johnson to lift the injunction. At an August 19, 2022, hearing, Assistant Attorney-General Beau Roysden argued in favor of lifting the injunction. On late September 23, 2022, Judge Kellie Johnson lifted the injunction. The ruling came a day before a 15-week abortion ban, signed by Governor Bob Ducey in March 2022, was about to go into effect. 

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Anti-Abortion Law

Another front of assault on women's reproductive rights is opened afresh as the Arizona Supreme Court on April 9, 2024 has ruled that officials may enforce an 1864 anti-abortion law that allows no exception other than when the mother's life is at stake. 

FLORIDA

Biden Blasts Florida's 15-week Abortion Ban Bill

A day after Florida legislature passed a bill that would make abortion illegal after 15 weeks of pregnancy with no exception for rape or incest, President Joe Biden on March 4, 2022 tweeted that "my administration will not stand for continued erosion" of women's right to "access to reproductive health care". Vice President Kamala Harris called the bill extreme by any measure. Speaking at Jacksonville on March 4, 2022, Governor Ron DeSantis said that he would look forward to signing the bill into law. 

Florida Supreme Court Paves the Way for 6-week Abortion Ban

Florida Supreme Court on April 1, 2024 ruled 6-1 to give green light to the state's 15-week abortion ban that Governor Ron DeSantis had signed in 2022. The ruling by the state's apex court paves the way for the state's eventual six-week ban on abortion. In a separate ruling, though, the state's supreme court allowed the issue to be put before the voters in November 2024 election. The 15-week ban drew ire of Biden administration and women rights groups as the ban, according to these groups, violated the  Florida Constitution's privacy clause. Floridians approved the privacy clause in 1980. Republicans argue that when Floridians have voted privacy clause on the measure more than four decades ago, they have meant to have upheld the "informational privacy". The Florida Supreme Court justices appeared to agree on that narrative, rejecting the plea from the plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, who have cited that specific clause to toss out the law. 

GEORGIA

Georgia's Governor Signs Fetal Heartbeat Law
Georgian Governor Brian Kemp on May 7, 2019 signed one of the most stringent anti-abortion law that would ban abortion any point of time when fetal heartbeat could be heard.

Federal Judge Blocks Heartbeat Law
A strict anti-abortion law signed by Governor Brian Kemp supposed to be effective January 1, 2020 was blocked by the U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones as the proceedings on the merit of the law would go ahead. The preliminary injunction, issued on October 1, 2019, came as a respite to abortion rights providers and groups.

Georgia Abortion Law Takes Effect after Appeals Court Ruling

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 20, 2022 overturned a lower court ban on a 2019 restrictive abortion law signed by Governor Brian Kemp. Writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, Chief Judge William Pryor said that the June 24, 2022, verdict by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs case that had overturned Roe vs. Wade ensured the validity of the 2019 Georgia law, which, in addition to imposing a strict regime of restrictions on the practice, described a fetus as a "person".  

Georgia's Six-week Ban on Abortions Overturned

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney on November 15, 2022 tossed out the heartbeat law that took effect in July 2022 after a federal appeals court cleared it on July 20, 2022. Judge McBurney rejected the state's arguments on issues related to violation to the U.S. constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent when the law had been enacted. Governor Brian Kemp signed the law in 2019 when Roe was still the law of the land.

Fetal Heartbeat Law Restored by State Supreme Court

On November 23, 2022, Georgia Supreme Court has overturned Fulton Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney's November 15, 2022, verdict, paving the way for the 2019 Georgia law to go into effect after a pause of more than a week as the case proceeds through the highest state court. The state has yet to file a formal appeal against the lower court's ruling. The state supreme court on November 23, 2022 issued an injunction on the lower court's verdict as the court would hold formal hearings on the merit of the law. The fetal heartbeat law signed by Governor Brian Kemp in 2019 bans almost all of the abortions after heartbeat is detected which is normally in the sixth week of pregnancy when many women even don't know that they are pregnant. The heartbeat law took effect in July 2022 after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. Before that, Georgians can seek abortions until 22 weeks of pregnancy. The November 23, 2022, Georgia Supreme Court verdict has been unanimous except Justice Nels D. Peterson, who is disqualified, and Justice Andrew Pinson, who has not participated. 

IDAHO 

Idaho Copycats Texas SB 8 Bill

Idahoan Governor Brad Little on March 23, 2022 signed a bill, which had been modeled after Texas Senate Bill 8, passed by the state's legislature. 

DOJ Sues Idaho for Law that Prohibits Abortions even under Emergency

Department of Justice on August 2, 2022 has filed a lawsuit against an Idahoan law that prohibits emergency care to a pregnant woman if that requires an abortion. According to the DOJ filing, first such lawsuit in the post-overturing [of Roe vs. Wade] era, the Idahoan law goes against the basic tenets of a federal law, Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTLA, that bans refusal to provide emergency treatment at nation's medical facilities.  

Certioraris Filed in Favor and against DOJ Suit 

Earlier in the week, 20 states and District of Columbia filed friend-of-the-court brief siding with the U.S. Department of Justice that had filed a lawsuit against an Idaho law that would ban almost all of the abortions effective August 25, 2022. According to the DOJ lawsuit, the Idaho law violates the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, a federal statute that requires any Medicaid-funded hospital to offer "stabilizing treatment" to patients facing health emergencies. On August 19, 2022, 17 GOP-ruled states filed a brief supporting the state. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill is scheduled to hear the case on August 22, 2022. 

Supreme Court Lets the Idaho Law Take Effect

The U.S. Supreme Court on January 5, 2024 has let the strict Idaho abortion law go into effect while the justices will, most likely, hear the case in April 2024. This is a setback to the Biden administration as Republican states are getting favorable rulings from some conservative appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

INDIANA

Indiana Bans Abortion in the First Post-Roe Legislative Action 

Indiana legislature banned all but few abortion procedures in the first legislative action of the nation since June 24, 2022, overturning of the Roe by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed the bill into law on August 5, 2022. The law, scheduled to go into effect on September 15, 2022, will ban all abortions except rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, or when mom's life is at stake.  

KANSAS

Kansas Governor Signs Strict Abortion Measure
Kansas' avowed anti-abortion Governor Sam Brownback on April 7, 2015 signed nation's one of the strictest anti-abortion measures that would ban common dilation and evacuation procedure during the second trimester of a woman's pregnancy. The measure will go in effect on July 1, 2015.

Appeals Court Holds off Abortion Measure from Going into Effect
Two abortion providers filed lawsuit against one of the strictest abortion control measures signed by the state Governor Sam Brownback on April 7, 2015. A lower court ruled against the measure and an appeal was filed to the Kansas Court of Appeals. The Kansas Court of Appeals was tied with 7-7 vote in a ruling issued on January 22, 2016. A tie verdict basically upholds the lower court ruling. The Kansas Court of Appeals' ruling made the fate of the abortion measure in limbo.

Abortion Measure Pushed by GOP Rejected by Voters

A constitutional amendment pushed by GOP to change the state constitution that guarantees abortion access has been stoutly voted down on August 2, 2022 by Kansans in a gigantic step that many are seeing a shaky ground for GOP on an issue that can change the electoral outcome in the midterm polls by motivating Democratic base. The margin of the win--close to 20%--is all the more startling as the turnout has been heavy in the first such poll solely on abortion access since Roe has been overturned. President Joe Biden said on August 3, 2022 that the U.S. Supreme Court "doesn't have a clue about the power of American women". 

Judge Puts a Hold on New Medication Abortion Law, Loosens Existing Abortion Restrictions

In a cheerful victory handout to abortion rights groups, a federal judge on October 30, 2023 issued a temporary injunction on a new medication abortion law. In addition, U.S. District Judge K. Christopher Jayaram blocked some older restrictions and a 24-hour waiting period, a provision in place since 1997, before seeking abortion. 


LOUISIANA

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Abortion Rights
In a historic decision, U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2020 overturned a Louisiana law that would have made more difficult for abortion providers to continue operation. Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Liberal justices in issuing 5-4 ruling against the Louisiana law. Justice Roberts' action is all the more noteworthy as he has sided in 2016 with a similar Texas law related to "admitting privilege" overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016. Drawing the parallel of that case, Justice John Roberts wrote a separate ruling, giving "stare decisis", or "like cases alike" as the basis for overturning the Louisiana law. A panel of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Fall of 2019 upheld the law by 2-1 vote, and the full appeals court refused to take the appeal to the panel's ruling, thus ending in the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Louisiana Trigger Law Becomes Effective

A Louisiana trigger law passed in 2006 that effectively bans nearly all abortions in the state has gone into effect after a TRO relief has expired on July 8, 2022. State District Judge Ethel Julien allowed the state's petition to move to another court in Baton Rouge, thus paving the way for TRO to expire. Now, the trigger law that punishes the providers with up to 10 years in jail and up to $100,000 in fines will be litigated in another court. The state has passed in recent years multiple laws to curtail abortion access. 

Louisiana's Abortion Ban Trigger Law Blocked Again

State Court Judge Donald Johnson on July 12, 2022 temporarily blocked the abortion ban in the latest turn of ricocheting fate of Louisiana's 2006 trigger law. 

Louisiana Abortion Ban Trigger Law Remains Blocked

On July 12, 2022, Louisiana State Court Judge Donald Johnson left the temporary restraining order, or TRO, relief intact, thus blocking the state's 2006 abortion ban trigger law as the judge sought more information about the law itself from both sides. 

MICHIGAN

Michigan to Hold a Referendum on Abortion

Michigan Supreme Court on September 8, 2022 ordered the state's election board to put a measure on whether to make the abortion access as part of the state constitutional right to vote on the midterm election day, November 8, 2022. On September 9, 2022, Michigan Board of State Canvassers, a body equally divided between two Democratic and two Republican members, put the measure before the voters. 

1931 Law Banning Abortion Repealed for Good

Not stopped at enshrining the right to abortion in the state constitution, Governor Gretchen Whitmer on April 5, 2023 signed a bill repealing an abortion ban which had been a dormant Michigan law since 1931. The two-strike approach taken by Democrats in Michigan has not only enshrined abortion right in the state constitution through a November 2022 ballot measure, but also eliminates, through a legislative measure, any possibility for Republicans to collect enough signatures and put a measure in the ballot to restore the abortion ban. State House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, voted last month to repeal the 1931 abortion ban. The November 2022 ballot measure enables Michigan to enact the constitutionality of abortion access after similar measure has been passed by California and Vermont to enshrine abortion in the state constitution. 


MISSISSIPPI

An Appeals Court Overturns a Mississippi Anti-Abortion Law
In a ruling that conflicted the March 27, 2014, same court ruling in a related Texas case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29, 2014 overturned Mississippi's 2012 anti-abortion law that required a doctor to have admitting privilege at a nearby hospital. The ruling will avoid the shutdown of the only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, in the state. The rationale for the 2012 law signed by the Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant was that women of the state could go to other states to perform abortion if the doctors didn't have admitting privilege at nearby hospitals. Judge E. Grady Jolly of Mississippi and Judge Stephen A. Higginson of Louisiana, who voted for the majority in the 2-1 ruling, opined that the state couldn't shift its responsibility of providing the access to abortion as required by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe VS Wade verdict to other states. The verdict for the Texas case was issued on March 27, 2014 by a different 3-judge panel.

Supreme Court Hearing on Mississippi's 15-week Abortion Ban Law

U.S. Supreme Court on December 1, 2021 heard arguments over a Mississippi law that aimed to ban abortions after 15 weeks. Although the law is now on hold, any positive verdict from the apex court will be a significant victory to anti-abortion and conservative groups as that will be seen as undermining of the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade Law. Two hours of oral arguments were held on December 1, 2021 in the so called Dobbs vs. Jackson Whole Health case. The Mississippi law is a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade  as well as a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, about three decades ago, has been supposed to have settled the so called "before viability" clause, considered a gold standard for determining if a fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. In that 1992 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1973 Roe vs. Wade and the "right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state". Fetuses don't achieve viability, according to many experts, before 23 to 24 weeks. 

Roe is About to Fall, Leaked Draft Reveals

The political world has received a severe jolt on May 2, 2022 as a leaked draft circulating among the Supreme Court Justices shows that five conservative justices are seriously thinking to overturn the decades-old Roe vs. Wade which has become the law of land. The draft is signed by Justice Samuel Alito. The draft reads: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled", referring to 1973 Roe vs. Wade verdict that has legalized abortion and 1992 ruling of Casey vs. Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania that has allowed Roe to continue, but with some restrictions limiting abortions to pregnancies with embryo still in a stage "before viability", estimated around 22 weeks or so. The case being litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court upon which the draft is written stems from Dobbs vs. Jackson Whole Health case related to a Mississippi law designed to ban abortion after 15 weeks. Politico on May 2, 2022 revealed the existence of the draft written on February 10, 2022. The political earthquake over the leaked abortion draft energizes the political base on the both aisles of the political divide and has the potential to disorient the existing political equation in the nation. 

Protests Flare up Nationwide over Leaked Draft

A day after an earthquake shook the political establishment and the main street over a leaked draft that the U.S. Supreme Court's five conservative justices were considering to throw out decades-old Roe as the court was readying to issue a verdict in a Mississippi case related to the state's effort to ban abortions after 15 weeks, protests and counterprotests were staged on May 3, 2022 at the U.S. Supreme Court and various other cities across the nation. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts said that there would be an investigation into the leak that had Politico reveal the existence of the draft written in February 2022. 

***************************** ROE VS. WADE OVERTURNED ************************

Mississippi Case Fallout: Roe vs. Wade Overturned by Supreme Court

In a seismic impact on the nation's political, social and moral compass, U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022 stripped women's constitutional rights to abortion. In a 6-3 verdict, U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority delivered a fatal blow to nation's five-decade's progress in women's access to legal abortion and reproductive rights. The verdict came in a Mississippi case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Whole Health, that aimed at banning abortion after 15 weeks. Conservative justices overturned both Roe vs. Wade, a 1973 law that had legalized abortion in the U.S., and 1992 Casey vs. Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania that had allowed Roe to continue, but with some restrictions, allowing abortion until fetus would reach the "viability stage" outside womb, normally 22 or so weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh to overturn Roe, opined that he would have favored a more limited approach to uphold a 15-week "viability" period for fetus while leaving Roe and Casey intact. The majority ruling states that the "constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion", thus rendering the responsibility whether abortion will be legal to the hands of each state. Texas and a dozen other states have already some form of trigger laws that will ban abortion once Roe is overturned. 16 other states and District of Columbia preemptively enacted laws to protect and uphold abortion rights. 

Although Justice Samuel Alito opined that the ruling [Dobbs vs. Jackson] only applied to abortion, the solo, concurrent opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents"----including Griswold vs. Connecticut from 1965, which protected access to contraception, Lawrence vs. Texas from 2003, which had overturned state's sodomy law, and Obergefell vs. Hodges from 2015, which had legalized same-sex marriage---- raised immediate alarm among LGBTQ community. They fear that the next frontier will be the gay marriage and gay rights and legal assault will be launched on "Obergefell vs. Hodges" and "Lawrence vs. Texas".

President Joe Biden condemned the ruling, while Republicans in general rejoiced the Supreme Court ruling. Progressives, women's rights groups and Democratic-leaning groups are livid at the ruling. World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed his profound concern at the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe. 

Biden Takes Executive Actions to Secure Abortion Access

Condemning the "extreme" steps taken by the U.S. Supreme Court to curtail the rights of abortions, President Joe Biden on July 8, 2022 took actions to secure some limited access to abortion by instructing the Health and Human Services Department and the Department of Justice to ensure protecting the federal access to reproductive care and defending against any adversarial steps taken by states to punish parties for seeking abortion across state lines. The presidential actions don't restore access to abortion in the states where the procedure is banned after Roe vs. Wade has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022. President Biden also instructs the Federal Trade Commission to protect the privacy of people exploring online to seek abortion. During the announcement of executive action on July 8, 2022, President Joe Biden passionately referred to a 10-year-old Ohio girl, who had been raped and had to be taken across the state lines to Indianapolis to get the abortion done on June 30, 2022. 

***************************** ROE VS. WADE OVERTURNED ************************

MISSOURI

Missouri Bans Abortion after Eight Weeks
Missouri Governor Mike Parson on May 24, 2019 has signed a bill that criminalizes almost all post-eight-week abortions. The law is to take effect on August 28, 2019, and it exempts only when mother's life is at stake.

First Post-Roe Federal Investigation into Care Denial of a Pregnant Woman

Based on a complaint from the National Woman's Law Center over the denial of two hospitals in August 2022 to provide abortion to a pregnant woman whose water broke at 17th week of pregnancy, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, launched its first investigation in the post-Roe era. On May 1, 2023, CMS issued its findings that both the hospitals--Freeman Health System in Joplin, Missouri, and University of Kansas Health System--had violated federal law when they denied required care to Mylissa Farmer of Joplin, thus jeopardizing her life. Farmer had to travel to Illinois to receive required care. 


NEW MEXICO


On November 19, 2013, Albuquerque residents defeated a proposed abortion measure that would bar late-term abortion (after 20 weeks of pregnancy) in the largest city of New Mexico by 55 to 45 percent margin. This is the first time ever an anti-abortion push was waged at the municipal level instead of state or federal level.

NORTH DAKOTA

Appeals Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling to Invalidate Country's Strictest Abortion Law
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 22, 2015 upheld last year's verdict of U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland that tossed out nation's strictest abortion law passed by North Dakota legislature in 2013 that banned abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy.

North Dakota Governor Signs One of the Strictest Anti-Abortion Laws

North Dakota became the latest state to restrict the access to abortion as Governor Doug Burgum on April 24, 2023 signed one of the most stringent anti-abortion laws in the nation that would ban abortions, including in the case of incest and rapes, after six weeks. The law is supposed to take effect immediately, but it's blocked by a last month's verdict by the State Supreme Court as the suit against the law goes forward. 

OHIO

Ohio Voters Enshrines Abortion, Other Reproductive Rights into State's Constitution

Ohio became the seventh state--after California, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Michigan and Vermont--to expand the abortion, or reproductive, rights or beat back restrictions on those rights. Ohio voters on November 7, 2023 overwhelmingly approved Issue 1 that called for, among others, tossing out a 2019 state law that banned abortion after six weeks although the law never took effect pending ongoing lawsuits. 

Ohio Supreme Court Rejects State's Appeal after Ohio Voters Approve Access to Abortion in Polls

The abortion and reproductive landscape changed significantly after the Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved Issue 1 in the November 7, 2023, poll, guaranteeing the women's unfettered access to the reproductive care, including abortion. On December 14, 2023, the clinics asked Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins to invalidate a 2019 law that was written to ban abortion after the detection of "fetal heartbeat". The law, signed by Governor Mike DeWine in April 2019, was prevented from going into effect by a federal court. However, after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June 2022, overturning the federal protection of abortion, the 2019 Ohio law took effect briefly. However, clinics in Hamilton County sued the state, and Judge Christian Jenkins issued a TRO. Ohio Attorney-General Dave Yost filed a certiorari in the State Supreme Court, asking the justices to review the case. In March 2023, Ohio Supreme Court agreed to review the case. 

However, things and political climate have changed since the November 7, 2023, poll that has affirmed women's right of access to the reproductive healthcare, including abortion. On December 7, 2023, Ohio OAG issued a statement, acknowledging the "will of the people on the issue". Meanwhile, on December 15, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the state's appeal, thus pushing the issue to the courtroom of Judge Jenkins. 

******************************* BRITTANY WATTS SAGA ***************************

Doctors' Group Urge Charges to be Dropped

An Ohio case of repressive and overzealous abortion-related prosecution is catching the nation's attention. Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old Black woman in Warren, Ohio, is being prosecuted for having miscarriage at home on September 22, 2023 on charges of abusing a corpse. Watts was facing pregnancy complications and her fetus was determined to be non-viable. She had visited and returned, without receiving care, twice from Mercy Joseph-St. Joseph Hospital in Warren. Her attorney said that Watts was anxious, frustrated and thought that she had been judged. The violation of the statute under which Watts has been charged is punishable by 1 year in prison and $2,500 in fines. 

Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, a nonpartisan group of 4,000 physicians, wrote a letter on December 15, 2023, urging Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins to drop the abuse of corpse charges against Watts because those charges were not in alignment with "letter and spirit" of the Issue 1.

Prosecutor to Present the Case to Grand Jury

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins said in a press statement on late December 19, 2023 that he was obligated to present the case to a grand jury. It's up to the grand jury to make a decision whether they will indict the defendant on the fifth-degree felony related to the abuse of a corpse. 

Grand Jury Declines to Indict Watkins

In a victory for Britanny Watts and her supporters, a Trumbull County grand jury on January 11, 2024 decided not to indict the Black woman who had recently become the face of resistance against the conservative persecution over abortion. 

******************************* BRITTANY WATTS SAGA ***************************

OKLAHOMA
Judge Puts a Hold on One of Two Abortion Measures
Oklahoma County District Court Judge Patricia Parish on October 14, 2015 put a hold on a law that would ban a common abortion practice, known as "dilation and extraction", during second trimester of woman's pregnancy. However, the judge let a second measure that would extend the current waiting period of 24 hours to 72 hours to go forward effective November 1, 2015.

Abortion Measure Aims to Punish Doctors
In one of the most expansionist legislative overreach, Oklahoma Senate on May 19, 2016 followed up a bill passed by the state House and voted 33-12 to pass an anti-abortion bill that would make any abortion carried out by doctors as felony. The bill, sponsored by the state Senator Nathan Dahm, now goes to the desk of Governor Mary Fallin.

Governor Vetoes the Abortion Bill
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin on May 20, 2016 vetoed one of a unique abortion bill passed by the state senate a day earlier. The bill was aimed at curbing abortion rights by allowing felony charges to be filed against doctors.

Oklahoma Governor Signs the Near-Total Abortion Ban Legislation

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt on April 12, 2022 signed a bill that would ban almost all of the abortions. A narrow exception is made for saving the lives of mother. The bill, scheduled to take effect in August 2022, imposes a penalty of $100,000 or a maximum of 10 years in jail to providers, but exempts the women seeking abortion from any punishment. Lawsuits are expected to be filed against the law, Oklahoma Senate Bill 612. 

State Supreme Court Rules Abortion Legal to "Preserve" Mother's Life

Oklahoma Supreme Court on March 21, 2023 marginally expanded the access to abortion in a 5-4 ruling, stating that abortion was legal not only in "medical emergency", but also to "preserve" mother's life under the state Constitution. The 5-4 ruling states that "requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger" mother's life and "doesn't serve a compelling state interest". 

SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Moves to Ban Abortion after 19 Weeks
South Carolina legislature on May 17, 2016 passed a bill to ban abortion after 19 weeks, becoming the 17th state in the nation that had enacted such restrictive law. The bill now goes to Governor Nikki Haley's desk, and all indications are that she will sign it. At present, 12 states have such laws in effect, legal challenges are being waged in three other states while a similar South Dakota law signed in March 2016 will go into effect this summer.

Governor Signs Restrictive Abortion Law
Governor Nikki Haley on May 25, 2016 signed the bill into law that would make the procedure all but illegal after 19 weeks of pregnancy. The few exemptions include when mother's life or fetal wellbeing is at stake.

South Carolina's Abortion Law Repealed by State Apex Court

South Carolina's Supreme Court by 3-2 vote on January 5, 2023 blocked an abortion law signed by Governor Henry McMaster two years ago that banned abortions after the detection of cardiac activities, normally in the sixth week of pregnancy. The state apex court has tossed out the restrictive anti-abortion law--which includes exception in cases of rape, incest, or when mother's life is at risk--on the ground that it violates the privacy right of the state constitution. 

South Carolina Supreme Court Upholds a Six-week Abortion Ban Law

Despite rejecting a similar law in January 2023, South Carolina's Supreme Court on August 23, 2023 upheld a law that would ban nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. What changed between January 2023 and August 2023 is not the fundamental precept of the law, but the composition of the state's apex court. After its lone female justice retired, South Carolina legislature filled the slot with a male conservative justice, and the verdict was 4-1. 

TENESSEE

Tennessee Heartbeat Law Tossed out by Appeals Court

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 10, 2021 tossed out Tennessee's heartbeat law, saying that it didn't allow enough time "before viability" of fetus as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1992 case known as the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. In that 1992 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1973 Roe vs. Wade and the "right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state". A fetus becomes generally viable at about 24 weeks, and in May 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks for a hearing later in Fall 2021.


TEXAS


Country's most restrictive abortion law passed in an emergency session in 2013 summer became a lightning rod for pro-life as well as pro-choice groups. TX Senator Wendy Davis, who is running for the job of state's governor, became nationally famous after launching a 13-hour filibuster in the first emergency session in June 2013. However, the measure was passed during a second emergency session, and subsequently signed into law. The law

* Bars abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy until mother's life is in danger

* Requires any abortion-inducing pills to be administered following the Food and Drug Administration-recommended protocols issued in 2000. However, subsequent large trials revised those protocols, requiring much lower dosages and fewer, less severe side effect. Under Texas law, doctors can't recommend the new drug regimen.

* Requires doctors to have admitting privilege in nearby hospitals

* Dictates abortion clinics to have ambulatory facilities like hospitals (to be effective in October 2014)

Pro-choice groups, including Planned Parenthood, sued to block the law, and US District Judge Lee Yeakel on October 28, 2013 blocked the law from taking effect as of November 1, 2013. However, TX AG Greg Abbott, who is running for the Republican Party ticket for Governor, appealed to a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. On October 31, 2013, the three-judge panel issued a unanimous verdict to lift the injunction imposed by Judge Lee Yeakel as the case, known as Planned Parenthood VS. Abbott, was winding through the legal system. The three-judge panel, however, left in place Yeakel's moratorium on the law's requirement that abortion-inducing pills to be administered following the FDA-recommended protocols if the women are between 50 and 63 days of pregnancy. Texas law wants to reduce the window from 63 days to 49 days.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a split verdict (5-4) on November 19, 2013 to keep the restrictive "admitting privilege" component of the Texas abortion law in effect as the legal challenge against the law would be heard in January 2014 by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 27, 2014, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the restrictive Texas abortion law.

Pro-abortion Group Challenges the Strict Facility Requirement of the Abortion Law in Court
New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on April 2, 2014 sued on behalf of several abortion providers against a key component of the strict Texas abortion law. The case came to be known as Whole Woman's Health VS. Hellerstedt. Under one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation, any Texas facility that provides abortion has to have ambulatory facilities like hospitals starting from October 2014. At present, only 6 out of state's 24 operating rooms fall under this category. Before the abortion law was passed by the state's legislature, there were 37 abortion providers in the state.

Judge Tosses Out New Abortion Rule
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on August 29, 2014 overturned Texas' new abortion restriction that required abortion facilities to have ambulatory provision like hospitals. A dozen or so abortion clinics out of 19--already down from more than 40 before the state legislature has passed last year one of the most restrictive law against abortion--in the state will shutter if the requirement goes into effect today. The ambulatory provision was scheduled to go into effect effective September 1, 2014. Dwelling in the case of Whole Woman's Health VS. Hellerstedt, Judge Yeakel not only tossed out the requirement of Texas abortion facilities to comply with the hospital surgical standards, he also struck down the doctors' admitting privilege part of the law, ruling that the combination would create an "impermissible obstacle" for women seeking abortion.

Appeals Court Overturns Lower Court Ruling against the Strict Abortion Law
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 2, 2014 overturned the August 29, 2014, ruling of the U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, thus paving the way of the remainder of the strict abortion rules to take effect in Texas and forcing most of the abortion clinics outside the major metroplex to shutter their doors.

U.S. Supreme Court Steps in Favor of Abortion Providers
U.S. Supreme Court sided with Texas' abortion providers on October 14, 2014, and overturned an October 2, 2014, ruling by the New Orleans-based  5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would shutter all but few abortion facilities in Texas by requiring onerous ambulatory requirements. Country's apex court also ruled in favor of abortion providers in a limited way for another onerous requirement by waiving El Paso and McAllen facilities from doctor admitting privilege rule. For the rest of the state, the admitting privilege still applies.

Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Strict "Hospital Requirements" Part of the Texas Abortion Law
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 9, 2015 issued a verdict that would uphold the state's 2013 abortion law's "hospital requirements" component that would force abortion providers either to do expensive upgrade of their facilities to comply with strict building codes that's more in line with hospitals or shutter their operation.

U.S. Supreme Court Steps in to Stay in Appeal Court's Verdict
Stepping in the politically volatile debate of abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2015 issued a ruling to put on hold 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' June 9, 2015, verdict until the apex court took the case later. The apex court's verdict of 5-4 will prevent about half of Texas' existing abortion clinics from shuttering because they lack strict operating and building standards like hospitals. Also, the pro-abortion groups read the breadth of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 29, 2015, verdict differently than the conservative groups, who tasted the latest defeat after recent high-profile losses at the Supreme Court that included cases related to Obamacare and gay marriage. Pro-abortion groups believe that the U.S. Supreme Court's June 29, 2015, ruling also has put the "admitting privilege" requirement of the abortion law on hold, a judicial interpretation conservative groups vehemently dispute.

U.S. Supreme Court Takes up Texas Abortion Case
On November 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court took up two measures--doctor's hospital admitting privilege and hospital-like operating and building standard-- of the Texas' strict abortion law for review. All eyes are now set on the Supreme Court case, dubbed as Whole Woman's Health VS. Hellerstedt.

Planned Parenthood Sues the State of Texas over Medicaid Cutoff
Planned Parenthood and 10 anonymous patients on November 23, 2015 sued the state of Texas for cutting off Medicaid funding that supported women's cervical cancer, AIDS/HIV screenings and birth control. Texas' move aimed at cutting off about $3 million in Medicaid funding that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services termed last month as a possible "conflict with the federal law". In October 2015, Texas Health and Human Services' Inspector-General Stuart Bowen said that the department would stop Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood over safety concerns raised by undercover video released by an anti-abortion group and a whistleblower's accusation of Medicaid fraud. Planned Parenthood, in its suit filed at a federal court in Austin, claimed that Texas' move to cut off Medicaid funding had violated 14th Amendment rights of patients for equal protection to choose providers on their own. Texas' move is to become effective in December 2015.

Two Indicted over Abortion Video
In a travesty of fate, the people who have gone to court to shame and stop the abortion practices of Planned Parenthood are now under the judicial scanner for violating laws. A Harris County grand jury on January 25, 2016 instead indicted two anti-abortion activists tied to Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion organization that had earned notoriety among pro-choice groups and accolade among the pro-life groups for secretly taping some of the Planned Parenthood officials discussing sales of fetus organs for research purpose and subsequently releasing those tapes last summer (summer 2015). The grand jury indicted David Daleiden, 26, Director of CMP, on two counts: a felony count for tampering of a government ID and a misdemeanor count for seeking to purchase human organs. Daleiden's accomplice, Sandra Merritt, was charged on tampering of a government record just like Daleiden. Both David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt used fake IDs of a fake company, BioMax Procurement Services, to enter the Planned Parenthood buildings and tape the alleged discussion that took place at the Gulf Coast Planned Parenthood facility. Harris County DA Devon Anderson said in a prepared statement that the grand jury had cleared the Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing. After the CMP released the video, fifth in a row, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick in August 2015 asked the Harris County DA Devon Anderson to launch a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood. Coincidentally this month Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco federal court against the CMP, its director and others who were involved in the videos.

Defendant Offered a Plea Deal
One of the two anti-abortion activists indicted on January 25, 2016 was offered on February 3, 2016 a pre-trial diversion, a form of plea deal, that would offer Sandra Merritt a form of probation in exchange for pleading guilty and drop all the charges after successful completion of probation. Merritt appeared before the court on February 3, 2016, and posted a $2,000 bail.

Leader of Anti-Abortion Group Offered Plea deal
The leader of the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress on February 4, 2016 surrendered, posted $3,000 bond and made two court appearances on two counts of charges: a felony charge of identity fraud and a misdemeanor charge for seeking to buy human organ. However, David Daleiden was cool to the offer by Harris County prosecutors for pre-trial diversion plea deal.

FDA Updates Protocols for Abortion Drug
The 2013 controversial abortion law passed by Texas legislature requires doctors to follow FDA guidelines when prescribing any abortion inducing pill such as widely prescribed mifeprex, which came to the market in 2000. The current FDA guideline is to use the medication for up to 49 days after the last period. Under the new FDA update released on March 30, 2016, the time of usage is to be extended to a maximum of 70 days. The FDA update will help Texas women to have easier access to and wider use of abortion pill.

Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts of Texas Abortion Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 tossed out the admitting privilege and facility surgical standards requirements of the controversial abortion law that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2013. The decision in the Whole Woman's Health VS. Hellerstedt was 5-3 and helped to clarify to what extent states could go to make access to abortion difficult. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, opined that the Texas abortion requirements had placed "a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion", and thus constituted "an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate constitution". 

Federal Judge State's Move to Bar Planned Parenthood
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks on February 21, 2017 dealt a legal blow to state of Texas' effort to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. Judge Sparks ruled in his preliminary injunction that state's effort to terminate the abortion provider from the Medicaid fund was "unqualified". 

Full Appellate Court Upholds Ban on Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthood

In a setback to women’s health groups and pro-choice groups, 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 23, 2020 voted to uphold Texas and Louisiana laws banning Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Many women’s health groups and pro-abortion groups have raised specter of women’s heath crisis as deprivation of Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood will lead to stoppage of providing health screening, cancer-related and other preventive services to poor women. The ban will also stand in Mississippi as the state comes under the purview of 5^th. In 2015, a three-judge panel of the appeals court blocked a Texas law that was designed to effectively ban Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, and in 2017, the full bench tied up with 7-7 votes. Since then the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has become more conservative. The November 23, 2020, ruling also blocked an injunction ordered by a lower court on a Louisiana ban on Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood.

************************************* HEARTBEAT ACT OR SB 8 **************************

Governor Abbott Signs Heartbeat Bill into Law

Texas Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021 has signed one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the nation, outlawing almost all future abortions after fetal heartbeats can be detected. The bill was sponsored in the state Senate by Sen. Brian Hughes, R-Mineola, and his co-sponsor in the House was Rep. Shelby Slawson, R-Stephenville. To many abortion opponents, it was a matter of celebration, while for pro-choice people, it was a moment of consternation. The starting point of "heartbeat" is moot to many in the medical community, and it may start as early as the sixth week. The bill aims at punishing against the abortion providers as well as anyone who "aids and abets" in abortion, potentially targeting family members and friends. The exception is very narrow, like when the mother's life is at jeopardy, but no such exception has been carved out for rapes or incest cases. The bill allows civilians to bring in lawsuits. 

One of the Most Restrictive Abortion Laws Goes into Effect

SB 8, also known as the "heartbeat bill", goes into effect on September 1, 2021. Once a heartbeat is detected, roughly after six weeks, abortion is to be banned in almost all of the cases, making the SB 8 one of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the nation. The enforcement will not be done by the state, in stead through private lawsuits. The law is mired in the Supreme Court, which because of the sizable Conservative majority, is likely to uphold it. SB 8 is very unique in abortion space because of its enforcement mechanism as government will not be involved in enforcing the law, thus making it difficult for abortion providers to fight against the measures. It's the private group such as Texas Right to Life which will lead filing suits against providers and anyone who will "abet" and "aid" abortions. A Travis County judge, District Judge Amy Clark Meachum, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on August 31, 2021 against Texas Right to Life and others who might be involved in filing lawsuits against abortion providers. County Judge Meachum's TRO does not prevent the SB 8 from going into force on September 1, 2021. 

Supreme Court Lets Texas Abortion Law to Stand

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court in the wee hours of September 2, 2021, or real late hours of September 1, 2021, has rejected an appeal from abortion providers against a Texas law banning abortion as soon as fetal heartbeat is detected by medical professionals, letting one of the strictest ant-abortion laws of the nation to go into effect. Many women may not even know that they are pregnant once heartbeat is detected, which can happen in as soon as six weeks of pregnancy. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court voted 5-4 against the appeal brought by the abortion providers, who had failed to sway the lower courts. In an unsigned verdict, Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barret, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote: "In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit". The majority opinion kept the door open for the case to get redressed through "other procedurally proper" vehicles, including the ones provided by the "Texas state courts". Senate Bill 8 takes the state government out of enforcement business, helping avoid scrutiny by the federal court system. It allows private citizens to file lawsuit against abortion providers, or any one who has "aided" and "abetted" in abortions which are not in compliance with the "heartbeat law". The plaintiffs are entitled to get $10,000 from the defendants if they win the case, plus the lawyers' costs. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberal bloc--Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--and dissented the majority ruling. 

Biden, Pelosi Blast Texas Law and Supreme Court Action on Abortion

After the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block the Texas Senate Bill 8, also known as "Heartbeat Bill", President Joe Biden on September 2, 2021 issued a harsh statement, criticizing the Supreme Court action that allowed "this extreme Texas law" to stand and violate the "constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade and upheld as a precedent for nearly half a century". Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted the Supreme Court denial of the emergency request to block the law, vowing to bring a measure to the House floor to codify the Roe v. Wade. 

A.G. Garland Vows to Provide Protection for Safe, Legal Abortion

As per instruction from President Joe Biden to his Department of Justice to explore ways to protect Roe v. Wade in response to Texas Senate Bill 8 that all but bans abortions after a medical provider detects heartbeat, normally after six weeks when most of the women don't even know that they are pregnant, Attorney-General Merrick Garland on September 6, 2021 has issued a statement, vowing to "protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement" of Freedom of  Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994. Texas Senate Bill 8 takes the enforcement action from the state's hands, and empowers the private citizens to file lawsuits against providers or anyone "aiding" and "abetting" abortion for $10,000 fines, plus the litigation costs. The law leaves the women going through abortion out of legal reach. 

DOJ Files Suit against Texas 

Attorney-General Merrick Garland on September 9, 2021 announced the filing of a lawsuit against the Texas SB 8, also known as the "Heartbeat Act", to block the state's effort to deputize the "bounty hunters" as part of the bill's intended goal of preventing women from accessing their constitutional right. The case was filed in a federal court in Austin. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas will hold the hearing on October 1, 2021. 

Temporary, Narrow Injunction against SB 8

A Travis County judge, Judge Karin Crump, on September 13, 2021 issued a very narrowly tailored ruling, barring Texas Right to Life from bringing lawsuit under the SB 8. The injunctive relief extends to three Planned Parenthood affiliates and one abortion provider until a trial set for April 4, 2022. There are other state lawsuits which have been filed to bar named defendants to bring "frivolous" lawsuits. A federal lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on September 9, 2021 to seek temporary and permanent injunctions, calling out the Senate Bill 8 as "unconstitutional" legal overreach by the state of Texas. However the September 13, 2021, Travis County Court's ruling does not prevent an unnamed defendant, not associated with Texas Right to Life, from bringing lawsuits under the "Heartbeat Act". Senate Bill 8 outsources the enforcement mechanism to private citizens who may bring lawsuits against an abortion provider or anyone  who "aids or abets" an abortion after heartbeat is detected by a medical professional, normally after six weeks. If successful, plaintiffs can win $10,000 per abortion plus legal costs. 

First Lawsuits against a Self-acknowledged "Heartbeat Act" Violator Filed

A San Antonio OBGYN who wrote in a weekend Washington Post Op-Ed against the Texas' "Texas Heartbeat Act" and dared the law's defenders to file a suit against him as he had performed an abortion [on September 6, 2021] after the law had taken effect in direct conflict to the law was slapped with a pair of lawsuits on September 20, 2021 by two out-of-state former attorneys. Oscar Stilley of Arkansas lost his law license over fraud charges and had been confined to his home, filed one of the first two lawsuits not because he opposed abortion, but because he wanted to force judiciary to rule that the Texas law was an end-run around woman's rights. The suit was filed at a Bexar County court. Another former attorney, Felipe Gomez of Chicago, filed a separate lawsuit, and his intent was to force a court to rule what he had called a blatant violation of the state of Texas to dictate to a woman "what to do with their bodies". Gomez requested the court for a declaratory judgment to find whether an abortion had actually been done in this case and, if it had been done, whether that had been an illegal abortion. The San Antonio OBGYN Dr. Alan Braid wrote in the weekend Washington Post column that he had performed abortion in direct contravention to the Texas abortion law, inviting lawsuits to be filed against him. 

Federal Judge Blocks SB 8

A federal judge, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Austin, on late October 6, 2021 temporarily blocked the Heartbeat Act, or Senate Bill 8. Texas immediately appealed the Judge Pitman's verdict to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the 113-page ruling, the Obama appointee said that "this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right". 

Abortion Law Restored by Appeals Court

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 8, 2021 issued an order to stay on the temporary injunction delivered by the U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Austin. The appeals panel asked the DOJ to file their brief by the end of October 12, 2021. 

Heartbeat Act Survives in Appeals Court

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals on October 14, 2021 ruled in 2-1 vote in favor of continuation of the Texas Heartbeat Act, or Senate Bill 8. The verdict by one of the most conservative courts leaves the DOJ either with refiling the case to the same court or appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court's three-judge panel did not rule on the merit of the case, it allowed the state law to remain effective as the case moved through the court system.

Heartbeat Act Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court

As expected, U.S. Department of Justice filed its formal appeal against the 5th Circuit's verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 19, 2021. The apex court agreed to have an expedited hearing. Texas submitted its filing on October 21, 2021, contending that federal government stay out of the matter altogether because of the unique nature of the law's enforcement mechanism. 

Supreme Court Sets a Priority Hearing, but Lets the Law Continue

U.S. Supreme Court on October 22, 2021 has decided to take up the Texas Heartbeat Act for hearing, and the oral argument will be held on November 1, 2021. However, the country's apex court did not issue any injunctive relief from the law that had all but stopped abortions in the state. 

Abortions Drop by Half in the First Month

As the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear a historic hearing on the Texas Heartbeat Act on November 1, 2021, with lead attorneys on both sides—Texas Solicitor-General Judd Stone II and Marc Hearron , senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, representing the Whole Woman’s Health—reported, coincidentally, to have almost the same academic and clerical background, Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin reported on October 29, 2021 that the number of abortions in Texas had fallen about 50% in the first month since the law became effective on September 1, 2021. The figure cited by Texas Policy Evaluation Project is markedly lower than what plaintiffs have submitted in a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court that abortions would fall by 85%. This is largest rate of decrease in abortions since a 13% drop registered under the 2013 House Bill 2 that had made requirement of an abortion doctor’s admitting privilege at a nearby hospital mandatory, forcing the closure of half of Texas’ abortion facilities. On November 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases related to SB 8, or Texas Heartbeat Act, Whole Woman’s Health vs. Jackson and United States vs. Texas. The apex court didn’t hear any case in such an expedited basis since Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

In the Whole Woman's Health vs. Jackson case, Texas Solicitor-General Judd Stone II will face off Marc Hearron, a fellow Texan, and in the United States vs. Texas case, Stone will face off the U.S. Solicitor-General Elizabeth Prelogar. 

State Judge Issues Temporary Injunction on SB 8

Retired Texas Judge David Peeples, a Republican who heard the state's Heartbeat Act as a special appointee, on December 9, 2021 issued a temporary injunctive relief to the aggrieved parties, including the plaintiff--in this case, Planned Parenthood--as the judge took strong exception to the special accommodation made for the enforcement mechanism, which he had called unconstitutional, designed to reward millions of private people without any proof of harm.  

SB 8 Stands for Now, Handing a Victory to Republicans

The U.S. Supreme Court on December 10, 2021 left Texas’ six-week ban on abortions and its novel enforcement mechanism intact for now as the case would run through the lower courts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs to use any argument based on “applicable federal defenses” against the Texas Heartbeat Act, or Senate Bill 8. The “applicable federal defenses” component of the verdict takes out from the SB 8 a key clause that defendants cannot mount a constitutional defense against the law.

Supreme Court justices by 8-1 vote left the SB 8 intact for now as the cases would proceed in the lower courts. Justice Clarence Thomas cast the only dissenting vote. Justices voted 5-4 against allowing the plaintiffs such as abortion providers to sue state attorney-general or court clerks or judge. Chief Justice John Roberts joined three Liberal justices in opposing the majority decision.

Supreme Court Again Refuses to Intervene; Rejects Abortion Groups' Petition

On January 18, 2022, an appeals court (U.S. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) sent the abortion case to Texas Supreme Court instead of a lower federal court to certify the question of state licensing officials being able to discipline the abortion providers who would violate the SB 8. Abortion providers slammed the appeals court decision as a "delay tactic". Unfortunately, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 20, 2022 rejected the pro-abortion groups' petition to send the case to a lower federal court, paving the way for the state supreme court to certify the question of state licensing officials being able to discipline the abortion providers who would violate the SB 8. Dissenting the majority opinion, Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the "court may look the other way, but I cannot". Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by other two Liberal justices--Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer--added: "Instead of stopping a Fifth Circuit panel from indulging Texas' new delaying tactic, the Court allows the State yet again to extend the deprivation of the federal constitutional rights of its citizens through procedural manipulation".   

Texas Supreme Court Accepts the Case

Texas Supreme Court on January 21, 2022 accepted the Whole Woman's Health vs. Jackson case. The state supreme court didn't schedule any hearing yet. The U.S. Supreme Court on November 1, 2021 heard the case, and on December 10, 2021, it allowed the SB 8 to stand as the plaintiffs would challenge the case in lower courts with limited scope. Texas Supreme Court didn't schedule any hearing yet. 

Hope for Federal Challenge to SB 8 Peters away with State Apex Court Verdict

Whatever had been left for a diminishing hope for a challenge to the Senate Bill 8 in the federal judiciary after the U.S. Supreme Court on December 10, 2021 had allowed the law to stand, while narrowing down the scope of the appeal process, and an appeals court had sent the case in January 2022 to the Texas Supreme Court to clarify whether state licensing officers had authority to enforce the law faded away on March 11, 2022 as the state's apex court ruled that the state licensing officials didn't have any direct or indirect power to enforce the law. The March 11, 2022, ruling from the Texas Supreme Court virtually ended the legal challenge to the Heartbeat Act in the federal court. 

Jonathan Mitchell: Brain Behind Crafting SB 8

The Texas abortion law that has become the envy of the conservatives all over the nation and is now being copied by several GOP-led states is the brain child of conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell. He penned an article, The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy, in 2018 in the Virginia Law Review. The article becomes the model framework to abolishing abortion by allowing a citizen-driven, civil penalty-based enforcement mechanism that is akin to a veto-proof mandate that courts will have difficulty to overturn. 

Wendy Davis Files a Federal Lawsuit Targeting SB 8

Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Former State Senator Wendy Davis, who had acclaimed a nationwide name for filibustering an abortion bill on the Texas Senate floor by speaking non-stop 13 hours in 2013, filed a lawsuit on April 20, 2022, asking the court to rule that Senate Bill 8 was unconstitutional. 

Effect of SB 8: At-risk Pregnant Women's Health Suffered

The Dallas Morning News in its front-page report on July 25, 2022 stated that the health of women with complications related to their pregnancy had suffered because of the Texas Senate Bill 8 in the form of denial of necessary abortion procedures, leading to unnecessary risks to women's lives and catastrophic outcomes such as water breakage. Parkland Hospital and UT Southwestern tracked 28 patients between September 2021 and May 2022. Doctors had no option, but to let the patients suffer until their health turned for the worse, necessitating abortion. Under Senate Bill 8, abortion has been allowed only when mother's life is at stake. The study by the Parkland and UT Southwestern will be published in the upcoming edition of American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 

************************************* HEARTBEAT ACT OR SB 8 **************************

Abbott Signs Another Abortion Restriction Bill

As controversy over the Texas Senate Bill 8, a.k.a. "Heartbeat Act", is swirling across the nation, another bill passed during the second special legislative session was signed by Governor Gregg Abbott on September 17, 2021 with much less fuss. SB 4 will target the use of mail-order abortion-inducing drugs. The bill punishes the mail-order abortion drug providers, even those who are outside the state boundary, with up to $10,000 fines and between 180 days and 2 years of state jail time. It bans providing abortion drugs after seven weeks of pregnancy. The SB 4 aims at self-managed abortions which many of the women do with minimal or no help from professionals. 

Texas Supreme Court Restores Ban on Abortion

After the June 24, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that had overturned Roe vs. Wade and unraveled the constitutional protection of abortion rights, many of the southern states were eager to implement the state-level trigger laws that would make most abortions illegal. The Texas trigger law that will go into effect a month after the June 24, 2022, verdict becomes official has at least several additional weeks to become effective. It will take at least six to seven weeks for the June 24, 2022, verdict to become official. Texas is one of the 13 states with a trigger law, and Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton has argued that, before the Texas trigger law becomes effective, the abortion in Texas is illegal because of an anti-abortion pre-Roe-era law enacted in 1925. Pro-abortion groups such as ACLU of Texas, Center for Reproductive Rights, Whole Women's Health and other groups filed a lawsuit in Harris County against Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton's instruction to stop all abortion activities immediately because they could be prosecuted under the 1925 anti-abortion law between now and when the Texas' trigger law would go into effect. The judge issued a TRO on June 28, 2022, and set a hearing date for July 12, 2022. Paxton appealed to the state Supreme Court. Texas Supreme Court sided with Paxton on late July 1, 2022. 

Texas Abortion Ban Trigger Law Countdown Begins

After the U.S. Supreme Court officially published its verdict on July 26, 2022 related to its Dobbs vs. Jackson case that had overturned the Roe, abolishing constitutional protection of abortion rights, Texas abortion ban trigger law was headed to a 30-day window of going into effect. 

************************************* ZURAWSKI VS. TEXAS ***********************

Texas Abortion Ban Law Challenged by Women Faced with Medical Emergencies

A landmark trial will be held by Travis County Judge Madeleine Connor in a case that has brought nationwide attention on the state's trigger law to ban abortion. The HB 1280, or the trigger law, passed in 2021 aims at banning almost all abortions. The law went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs. vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling last year that had overturned the federal protection to abortion and left the procedure to the jurisdiction of states. The trigger law makes exception to only when mother's life faces medical emergency such as "life-threatening physical conditions", or "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function".  Since the language is vague of what constitutes medical emergency, Texas doctors often deny necessary abortion services, or even are not willing to talk to patient about abortion, rendering many of the mothers with complex pregnancies to go out of state to seek abortion. The case was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights in March 2023, with Amanda Zurawski as main plaintiff. The case, Zurawski vs. State of Texas, was later joined by 12 other women and two doctors. In May 2023, the plaintiffs asked the judge to issue a temporary restraint ordinance (TRO) relief injunction. Texas asked the judge in June 2023 to dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs didn't have any ground to file the case. Judge Madeleine Connor's courtroom will hold a two-day (July 19-20, 2023) hearing on the case that now includes 15 plaintiffs, including 13 women. 

Judge Exempts Women with Complicated Pregnancies from Abortion Restriction

A Travis County judge, Judge Jessica Mangrum, on August 4, 2023 issued a temporary injunction on Texas' near-total abortion ban for women with complicated pregnancies. The Travis County courtroom during July 19-20, 2023 heard heart-wrenching stories from pregnant women who were denied abortion even under situations when women had to face life-threatening health conditions or fatal fetal abnormalities. Judge Mangrum opined that doctors couldn't be prosecuted for consenting to and carrying out abortions under:

* A medical situation or complication of pregnancy that makes risk of infection or risk to mother's health higher if continuing with the pregnancy

* A medical condition that's exacerbated by the pregnancy with no effective treatment while continuing with the pregnancy or requires "recurring pervasive intervention"

* A fatal fetal condition where the fetus is unlikely to survive after birth

The Texas [near-total abortion ban] trigger law challenged in this case--Zurawski vs. State of Texas--includes a very narrow exception written in a vague language that allows abortion when a pregnant woman's life is threatened by continuing with the pregnancy. 

Hearing to Begin at the State Supreme Court

After the Office of Texas Attorney-General immediately appealed the August 2023 verdict of Travis County Judge Jessica Mangrum who had issued a TRO (temporary restraining ordinance) relief against the state's near-total abortion ban trigger law, the state Supreme Court lifted the injunction. That set the stage for an oral argument to ensue on the merits of the law. Now, there are 20 plaintiffs in this case, dubbed as the Zurawski vs. State of Texas. The language in the trigger law is vague such as abortion is prohibited except when the mother faces a "life-threatening physical condition" or is at risk of "impairment of a major bodily function". 

The state Supreme Court will hear the case on November 28, 2023. The case is unique as the plaintiffs don't directly challenge the abortion ban. Instead, it aims at the vague language of exception to the near-total abortion ban. 

************************************* ZURAWSKI VS. TEXAS ***********************

******************************** KATE COX VS. TEXAS *****************************

Dallas Woman Files Second Suit against Texas Abortion Law

Center for Reproductive Rights on December 5, 2023 filed a second lawsuit over Texas' near-total abortion ban in Travis County. The suit states that a Dallas-area woman, Kate Cox, 31, has visited three area emergency rooms in the last month with severe cramp and unidentifiable fluid leaks in her third pregnancy. Cox was diagnosed that her baby in the womb was suffering from full trisomy 18, or Edwards Syndrome, leading to what could be a "fatal fetal" condition. The certiorari says that "Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now". The complaint was filed on December 5, 2023 in the Travis County District Court. The first case involves 20 plaintiffs who allege that their abortion requests were either delayed or denied over the unclear wording in the state's abortion ban trigger law. 

Travis County Judge Issues TRO

Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble on December 7, 2023 granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to allow providers and medical professionals to provide Kate Cox the abortion services as the Dallas area woman did fit in the criteria of exception to the Texas abortion ban. The exception criteria state that an abortion is allowed when a woman faces a "life-threatening physical condition" or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function". 

Responding to the Travis County judge's ruling, Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton said in a threatening manner that the providers would be liable under SB 8 that empowered the private parties to file civil lawsuit and pre-Roe state laws even if the current trigger law might not be applicable. 

Texas Supreme Court Blocks Cox' Abortion

In a stunning verdict, Texas Supreme Court on December 8, 2023 put a hold on a lower court judge's ruling a day earlier that Dallas-area woman Kate Cox, 31, could seek abortion. Attorney-General Ken Paxton in the immediate aftermath of the December 7, 2023, ruling appealed against the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) issued by Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble. Paxton also wrote letters to three Houston-area hospitals with professional association with OBGYN Dr. Damla Karsan, warning them that if Karsan went ahead with aborting the baby of Ms. Cox, that would amount to violating "appropriate professional judgment" and "your hospital may be liable of negligently credentialing" Dr. Karsan. Dr. Damla Karsan is one of the 20 plaintiffs of a separate abortion trial: Zurawski vs. Texas. 

State Supreme Court Strikes down Lower TRO, Cox Leaves the State to Seek Abortion

On the same day that the Texas Supreme Court struck down a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, the woman in question left the state to seek abortion as the health of Kate Cox had deteriorated significantly. Texas' apex court's December 11, 2023, ruling hinges on the justices' argument that doctors should justify the mother's medical exception to abortions, not the judges. 

Cox the Unlikely Face of Fight against Texas' Abortion Ban

According to a December 17, 2023, front-page article of The Dallas Morning News, Dallas mother Kate Cox has become the unlikely face of resistance to Texas' abortion ban. Before the state Supreme Court tossed out a lower court TRO, Ms. Cox left the state to get abortion. Cox faced medical emergency as her pregnancy was diagnosed with full trisomy 18, a rare fatal fetal disorder. There are probably three Texas anti-abortion laws in the book: (1) Senate Bill 8, (2) "trigger law" that took effect after the fall of Roe vs. Wade, and (3) pre-Roe abortion ban law. 

TMB Issues Abortion Exception Guidelines

As the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Dallas woman Kate Cox' petition asking for access to abortion as suggested by her OBGYN, it asked the Texas Medical Board to issue guidelines when exceptions could be made with respect to the state's abortion ban. In January 2024, lobbyists Amy and Steve Bresnen petitioned the TMB, seeking clarification and guidance. 

The Texas Medical Board on March 22, 2024 issued the first guidelines on abortion exception. The guidelines, though, were a generalized framework, and the specificity was left to the individual doctors specific to individual cases. However, Ectopic pregnancy is an area of exception, where fertilized eggs grow and mature outside woman's uterus, where the exception is likely to be recommended. 

******************************** KATE COX VS. TEXAS *****************************

WISCONSIN

Wisconsin's Anti-Abortion Law Unconstitutional, Says a Federal Appeals Court
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 23, 2015 ruled that the Wisconsin law that required abortion providers to have admitting privilege at nearby hospitals was unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the appeals court took up the case after Wisconsin Department of Justice appealed a March 2015 ruling by a lower court judge, U.S. District Judge William Conley, that the 2013 law served no legitimate health interest. A similar Texas anti-abortion law was taken up for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court on November 13, 2015.

LATIN AMERICA

COLOMBIA

Colombia to Legalize Abortion until 24th Week

Colombia's Constitutional Court on February 21, 2022 ruled that pregnant women could seek abortions until the 24th week of their pregnancy, paving the way for legalized abortion in this conservative Latin American predominantly Catholic nation. 

ARGENTINA

Argentina a Step Closer to Elective Abortion Right

In the land of Pope Francis, there is a renewed push to legalize abortion, and after an overnight debate, the lower house of parliament on December 11, 2020 early morning has passed a bill by 131-117 votes, with five abstentions, that will make abortion legal through the 14^th week of pregnancy. Hundreds of women standing outside the parliament erupted with joy after the vote results were made public by the speaker of the house and displayed on a large TV screen outside. The pro-choice women wore green face masks, signifying the color that had become synonymous with pro-choice movement. The bill now goes to Senate where its fate is uncertain. Latin America has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws, with Mexico City, Cuba and Uruguay are some of the few places that allow abortion. Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez promised to sign the bill after Senate passed it. 

Argentina's Senate Passes Abortion Rights Law

Argentina's upper chamber on December 30, 2020 passed a landmark law by a comfortable 38-29 margin that would allow abortions through 14th week of presidency and beyond 14th week in cases of mother's health or rape. The vote is a reversal of a cliffhanger rejection of Senate couple of years ago. The 12-hour debate on the Senate chamber was filled with high drama and emotion. President Alberto Fernandez tweeted that he would sign the law, a campaign pledge, to make abortion "safe, legal and free".  Although abortion is legal in Uruguay, Cuba and Mexico City, it's pretty much prohibited in the large parts of conservative Latin America. Argentina's move to legalize abortion will reverberate across the region and boost the pro-choice movement in other nations. 

GUATEMALA 

Guatemala Ups Its Ante against Abortion, Gay Marriage

Breaking from the trend in Latin America, Guatemala increased punishment on women who would seek abortion as well as prohibited the same-sex marriage. Guatemalan Congress on late March 8, 2022 passed the "Protection of Life and Family" law that would increase jail term to a maximum of 10 years, up from the current maximum of 3 years. Abortion is now legal in Guatemala only when mother's life is at stake. The law also prohibits the same-sex marriage, which is anyway illegal in Guatemala now. The law bars schools from teaching any content that deviates from traditional definition of "identity according to the birth gender". Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei on March 9, 2022 said that the law "is an invitation to unite as Guatemalans to protect life from conception". 

MEXICO

Mexican Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion

Six days after one of America's most restrictive abortion laws became effective in Texas, Mexican Supreme Court on September 7, 2021 unanimously decriminalized abortions. The ruling does not legalize the abortion yet, but it repudiates a Coahuila law that penalizes a woman with up to three years of imprisonment for abortion. Now, on the both sides of borders, politicians, state courts, abortion providers, pro-choice and pro-life groups are  waiting to see how the September 7, 2021, Mexican Supreme Court ruling shapes up in Mexico's individual states' efforts to loosen the prevailing abortion rules, paving the way for many Texas women, especially from Rio Grande Valley, to seek abortions in Mexico's northern states. 

EUROPE

FRANCE

France Moves in the Direction to Become the First Nation to Codify Abortion Rights in the Constitution

The upper house of the parliament on February 28, 2024 voted 267-50 to write the abortion right as a "guaranteed freedom" in the constitution, paving the way for France to become the first ever nation to embed the abortion right as a constitutional right. 

Abortion Right Enshrined in Constitution by the Joint Session of Parliament

In a historic vote, a joint session of National Assembly and the Senate at the Palace of Versailles on March 4, 2024, French lawmakers voted 780-72 to amend Article 34 of the French Constitution, guaranteeing the women's right to abortion as the amendment specified that "the law determines the conditions by which is exercised the freedom of women to have recourse to an abortion, which is guaranteed". Prior to the vote, French Premier Gabriel Attal addressed 925 lawmakers, paying rich tribute to the queen of the modern French Feminist Movement, Simone Veil, a former health minister, whose perseverance and leadership helped decriminalize abortion in 1975.

Abortion Guarantee in Constitution Becomes Official on the International Women's Day

At a public ceremony on March 8, 2024, the International Women's Day, French Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti used a 19th century printing press to seal the amendment in France's Constitution. Applause erupted from more than 1,000 people assembled at Place Vendome. 

POLAND

Strict Abortion Ban Takes Effect, Protests Begin

After the Polish Constitutional Court, the highest court of the land, had ruled in October 2020 in favor of one of the strictest abortion bans in the western world, many women rights groups held numerous demonstrations across the country and mobilized young women in an unprecedented manner. The ban went into effect on January 27, 2021. The day the ban had undergone into effect, large demonstrations had been held in Warsaw, Gdansk and other major cities. The anti-ban demonstrations continued on the following day and also on January 29, 2021 when minor scuffles broke out in some places. 

Anti-Abortion Law Opponents Turn out in Large Numbers over Woman's Death

That the life of a woman has to be sacrificed to spotlight how bad the new anti-abortion law is for the Polish women is galling. The woman had died of septic shock back in September 2021 in the southern Polish town of Pszczyna, but the nation came to know about it only recently. The fetus did not have any likelihood of survival because of lack of amniotic fluid. But doctors could not perform abortion because of an October 2020 Constitutional Court's ruling that pregnancy termination for congenital defectives violated the Polish constitution. Doctors in the local hospital have been suspended, and authorities are looking into the death. Before this demoniac law, Poland had legal abortion under three circumstances:

* Mother's life being at risk

* Pregnancy due to rape

* Fetus at a state of irreparable damage

Constitutional Court's ruling precluded the third reason for seeking abortion, and apparently led to the woman's death at Pszczyna in September 2021. Supporters of the new restrictive law said that it's not clear what had caused the woman's death. Polish Health Minister Adam Niedzielski said that instructions would be sent with clear emphasis on "woman's safety" and that would be a good reason "to terminate pregnancy". 

On November 6, 2021, women's rights groups and pro-choice groups organized rallies at various cities to decry Poland's new anti-abortion law and demanded that the law be revoked so that not a single more woman would die. Former European Union leader Donald Tusk participated in the Warsaw rally organized near the Constitutional Court building. Demonstrations were also held at Gdansk, Poznan, Wroclaw and other cities.