Supreme Court Ruling: Texas Abortion Law Stands

The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block Texas's abortion ban has been a highly controversial topic. The Court's decision, issued on December 10, 2021, in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, allowed the state's abortion ban to remain in place, effectively ending most abortion access in Texas. The ban, known as S.B. 8, prohibits abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy and incentivizes individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who provides abortion care or assists someone in obtaining an abortion in violation of the ban. This decision sparked widespread criticism, with advocates arguing that it denied Texans their constitutional right to abortion and left federal courts powerless to defend these rights. The Supreme Court's ruling also survived a review months later, further solidifying the ban's enforcement.

The US Supreme Court's refusal to block Texas's abortion ban

The Texas Abortion Ban

Texas's abortion ban, known as S.B. 8, bans abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy, which is before many people know they are pregnant. The law also includes a unique provision that empowers private citizens to sue anyone who aids or performs an abortion. This "bounty hunter" feature was designed to circumvent judicial review and has effectively ended most abortion services in Texas.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

On December 10, 2021, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, refusing to block Texas's abortion ban. The Court dismissed the most significant part of the case, ruling that providers could not bring suit against state officials or judges. This left federal courts "powerless" to defend constitutional rights and effectively endorsed Texas's efforts to subvert the US Constitution, according to Marc Hearron, Senior Counsel of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Biden Administration's Response

The Biden administration has made efforts to protect access to abortion, particularly in emergency situations. In July 2022, the administration issued guidance reminding healthcare providers of their obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide emergency care, including abortions, regardless of state laws prohibiting the procedure. However, Texas and two anti-abortion medical associations sued the administration, arguing that the guidance unlawfully compelled healthcare providers to perform abortions.

The Supreme Court's Refusal to Intervene

Despite the Biden administration's appeals, the US Supreme Court declined to intervene in Texas's emergency abortion case. The Court upheld a lower court ruling that hospitals in Texas can deny terminating certain emergency pregnancies, even if they conflict with federal requirements. This decision contrasted with the Court's intervention in a similar case in Idaho, where they temporarily cleared the way for doctors to perform emergency abortions without prosecution.

The Supreme Court's refusal to block Texas's abortion ban and its failure to provide clarity on emergency abortions have left the issue of abortion access in flux. The Court's actions have allowed Texas's restrictive abortion laws to remain in place, significantly impacting the reproductive rights of Texans and setting a precedent for other states to follow suit.

Biden administration's appeal to enforce federal guidance in Texas

The Biden administration's appeal to enforce federal guidance in Texas stems from the state's restrictive abortion laws and the subsequent impact on women's access to emergency abortion care. Texas has enacted a Republican-backed near-total abortion ban, with limited exceptions. The Biden administration's efforts to protect abortion access in the state centre on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law mandating hospitals to provide emergency care to stabilise patients, regardless of their ability to pay.

In July 2022, the Biden administration issued guidance reminding healthcare providers of their obligations under EMTALA, including the requirement to provide abortions in emergency situations to stabilise a patient, even in states with restrictive abortion laws. This guidance was a response to the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalised abortion nationwide. The administration's guidance clarified that EMTALA pre-empts state abortion bans that offer no exceptions for medical emergencies.

Texas law, however, prohibits abortions unless the pregnancy places the woman at substantial risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function". The state, along with two anti-abortion medical associations, sued the Biden administration, arguing that the guidance unlawfully compelled healthcare providers to perform abortions beyond what is permitted by Texas law. A US district judge, James Wesley Hendrix, blocked the enforcement of the guidance in 2022, finding it to be an unlawful interpretation of EMTALA. This decision was upheld by the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2023.

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's ruling, arguing that federal law, specifically EMTALA, requires hospitals to provide abortions in emergency situations. They referenced a similar case in Idaho, where the Supreme Court permitted emergency abortions while a lawsuit challenging the state's abortion ban proceeded in federal court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Biden administration's appeal, allowing the lower court's ruling in Texas to stand, and thus, limiting abortion access in the state.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

The U.S. Supreme Court case Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson challenged Texas's Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. The law also incentivizes individuals, including anti-abortion activists, to bring lawsuits against anyone who provides abortion care or assists someone in obtaining an abortion in violation of the ban.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in this case, refusing to block Texas's abortion ban and allowing the law to remain in effect. The Court's decision was made in a 5-4 vote, with the majority ruling that the providers could not bring suit against state judges, clerks, or the state Attorney General. The Court did allow a narrow portion of the case to proceed against the Texas Medical Board and other licensing authorities, but in March 2022, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the case could not proceed against these defendants, effectively ending the federal court challenge to the state's ban.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, who brought the case, argued that the Texas law denied Texans their constitutional right to abortion and ended most abortion access in the state. They also criticized the law's vigilante scheme, which hands over state enforcement power to private citizens, allowing them to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against abortion providers.

The Supreme Court's refusal to block the Texas abortion ban has been criticized by reproductive rights advocates, who argue that the Court has failed to protect constitutional rights and has effectively endorsed Texas's efforts to subvert the U.S. Constitution. The case has also highlighted the challenges faced by abortion providers and the uncertainty around abortion ban exceptions in several states.

The role of Jonathan Mitchell in the Texas abortion law

Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, born on September 2, 1976, is a conservative lawyer and the former Solicitor General of Texas. He is credited as the "architect" of Texas' abortion bounty law, SB 8, which effectively ended abortion access in Texas.

Mitchell's role in the Texas abortion law centres on his novel legal strategy, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists with abortions, rather than relying on state officials to enforce the ban. This "bounty hunter" provision was designed to circumvent judicial review and prevent abortion providers from challenging the law before it took effect.

Mitchell's legal strategy has been described as "dangerous" and "radical", as it seeks to grant Republican state lawmakers maximum power and thwart judicial review. He has defended this strategy by arguing that the judiciary is afforded too much power and that state legislatures should have more control over constitutional rights.

In addition to his work on the Texas abortion law, Mitchell has been involved in various other culture war and religious-right legal challenges, including anti-LGBTQ rights and anti-affirmative action lawsuits. He has also been a driving force behind anti-union litigation and has represented former President Donald Trump in several legal matters.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of Biden's bid to force Texas to provide emergency abortions

On Monday, 7 October 2024, the US Supreme Court dismissed President Joe Biden's bid to enforce federal guidance requiring hospitals in Texas to perform emergency abortions if needed to stabilise a patient's medical condition. The Biden administration issued the guidance in July 2022 to protect access to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade ruling in June 2022, which had previously legalised abortion nationwide.

The 1973 Roe v Wade ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court's conservative majority, prompting the Biden administration to issue guidance reminding healthcare providers of their obligations under the 1986 federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This law requires Medicare-participating hospitals to offer emergency care to stabilise patients regardless of their ability to pay. Hospitals that violate EMTALA risk losing Medicare funding.

The guidance clarified that under EMTALA, physicians must provide abortions to resolve medical emergencies and stabilise patients, even in states where abortions are banned. This measure was intended to supersede state bans that offer no exceptions for medical emergencies or include only narrow exceptions. Texas law, for example, prohibits abortions unless the pregnancy places the woman at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function".

The Biden administration's guidance was challenged by Republican-governed Texas and two anti-abortion medical associations: the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. They argued that the guidance unlawfully compelled healthcare providers to perform abortions. In 2022, US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix blocked the enforcement of the guidance, finding that it was an unlawful interpretation of the EMTALA statute and would allow abortions beyond what is permitted by Texas law.

The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Hendrix's decision on 2 January, ruling that EMTALA "does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion". Despite challenges from abortion rights advocates, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Biden administration's appeal, turning away the Justice Department's attempt to enforce federal guidance in Texas.

Frequently asked questions