- Title: Biden 'very concerned' by Supreme Court decision to keep abortion curbs in Texas
- Date: 11th December 2021
- Summary: UNIDENTIFIED LOCATION (DECEMBER 10, 2021) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) SARAH PARSHALL PERRY, LEGAL FELLOW, MEESE CENTER, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, SAYING: "I'd say in the end, this was only a very minor victory for the pro-choice movement. I think because the suit is allowed to go forward just on the pre-enforcement challenge and just against four individual defendants out of the multiple defendants that were named, this is a very minor sliver of the story."
- Embargoed: 25th December 2021 01:56
- Keywords: Texas abortion
- Location: VARIOUS
- City: VARIOUS
- Country: USA
- Topics: Crime/Law/Justice,Judicial Process/Court Cases/Court Decisions,United States
- Reuters ID: LVA00BF7GHEMF
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9
- Story Text: U.S. President Joe Biden is "very concerned" by the Supreme Court decision to leave in place a ban on most abortions in Texas and he is "deeply committed" to the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized the procedure nationwide, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Friday (December 10).
The statement came hours after the Supreme Court left in place a ban on most abortions in Texas but allowed a legal challenge to proceed, with the fate of the Republican-backed measure that allows private citizens to enforce it still hanging in the balance.
The Texas law bans abortions at around six weeks, a point when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant, with no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
The law also enables private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists a woman in getting an abortion after embryo cardiac activity is detected. Individual citizens can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for successful lawsuits. Biden's administration has called this a "bounty."
Attorney Marc Hearron with The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is leading the challenge, said that while the court allowed part of the challenge to proceed, it knocked down the most critical part which disputed the right of private citizens to sue abortion providers in the state.
"The law can also be enforced, as the Supreme Court ruled today, by state licensing officials who could take action against physicians' licenses, nurses, pharmacists, their licenses, for assisting in the provision of abortion care, that part of the case can proceed," he explained.
Attorney Sarah Parshall Perry, a legal fellow at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation's Meese Center, said the law was designed to bankrupt abortion providers.
"Because this law is ultimately designed to halt abortion but is not directed in any respect to the women having abortions, I think the law is written in such a way that it's ultimately designed to bankrupt the abortion industry in the state of Texas," she said.
Hearron agreed, saying the unlimited scope of the law would turn doctors into "permanent defendants."
"Even if you win every single lawsuit that is brought against you because the law itself is unconstitutional, the fact of having to defend in an unlimited number of lawsuits - you essentially become a permanent defendant and you have to find legal counsel that will constantly defend you - that alone threatens to put abortion providers and funds out of business," he said.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide another major abortion case from Mississippi that could lead to the overturning of the Roe v. Wade ruling. Mississippi's law, blocked by lower courts, bans abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Friday's ruling, authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not directly address the broader questions raised in the Mississippi case.
Parshall Perry said she believes the Texas decision will come after the Mississippi case because the Mississippi case would decide if abortion is constitutionally protected.
The court's decision not to block the Texas law provided another signal that its majority may be inclined to curb abortion rights.
Hearron said he thinks the clearest way to guarantee abortion rights is for Congress, to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, which has passed the House but not the Senate.
"What we need is relief at the federal level. We need Congress to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, which would stop these unconstitutional bans," he said.
(Production: Arlene Eiras) - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2021. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None