Texas Abortion Law: Who Authored The Controversial Legislation?

The Texas abortion law, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, was authored by Senator Bryan Hughes. The law bans abortions after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which usually occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy. It is enforced solely by private citizens, who are authorized to sue anyone who performs or assists with an illegal abortion for a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages per abortion, in addition to court costs and attorney's fees. The law came into effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers.

The Texas Heartbeat Act

Provisions of the Texas Heartbeat Act:

• Prohibition on Abortion After Fetal Heartbeat Detection: The Act prohibits physicians from performing or inducing an abortion after the detection of a "fetal heartbeat," defined as cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac. The only exception is in cases of medical emergencies.
• Private Enforcement Through Civil Lawsuits: The Act is uniquely enforced through private civil lawsuits rather than criminal penalties imposed by state officials. Any individual, except employees of state or local governments, can sue anyone who performs, induces, or aids and abets an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. The Act authorizes a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages per abortion, plus court costs and attorney's fees.
• No Public Enforcement by State Officials: The Act explicitly bars state or local officials from enforcing the law, leaving enforcement solely in the hands of private citizens. This provision shields state officials from being sued and makes it difficult for abortion providers to obtain pre-enforcement injunctions.
• Undue Burden Defense: The Act allows defendants to escape liability if they can demonstrate that complying with the law would impose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. However, this defense is unavailable if Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey is overturned.
• Sovereign Immunity for the State: The Act preserves sovereign immunity for the state of Texas and its officials, protecting them from being sued.
• Attorney's Fees for Litigants Challenging Abortion Restrictions: Litigants who unsuccessfully challenge the constitutionality of abortion restrictions in Texas are required to pay the attorney's fees of the prevailing parties.
• Exceptions in Cases of Medical Emergency: The Act includes exceptions for medical emergencies where the mother's life is at risk or she faces severe irreversible bodily harm. However, it makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Impact and Controversy:

• Elimination of Abortion Access: The Act effectively eliminated access to pre-viability abortions in Texas, as an estimated 85% of abortions in the state occurred after the six-week mark. This has forced many women to seek abortions out of state or resort to self-managed abortions.
• Legal Challenges: The Act has been subject to numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts, but it has withstood these challenges due to its unique enforcement mechanism. Abortion providers and advocates, as well as the United States Department of Justice, have unsuccessfully tried to restore access to post-heartbeat abortions.
• Frustration of Judicial Review: The private enforcement mechanism was designed to thwart judicial review and insulate the law from being effectively challenged in court. This has led to criticism from legal experts and abortion rights supporters, who argue that it undermines the judiciary's role in enforcing constitutional rights.
• Replication by Other States: The success of the Texas Heartbeat Act has encouraged other states to adopt similar legislation. Oklahoma and Idaho have enacted six-week abortion bans modeled after the Texas law, and other states are considering similar measures.
• Increase in Infant Mortality and Newborn Deaths: Studies by Johns Hopkins and JAMA Pediatrics suggest that the Act is associated with an increase in infant mortality and newborn deaths.
• Public Opinion: Public opinion on the Act is divided, with some polls showing narrow support and others showing narrow opposition.

The role of the Supreme Court

The Texas abortion law, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) or the Texas Heartbeat Act, bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which usually occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy. This law is unique as it is enforced solely by private citizens through civil lawsuits, rather than by state officials. This enforcement mechanism made it difficult for abortion providers to challenge the law in court and prevented pre-enforcement judicial review. The Supreme Court declined to block the implementation of SB 8, allowing it to take effect on September 1, 2021.

The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene in the Texas abortion law sparked outrage among liberals and was applauded by many conservatives. The court's inaction was seen as a way for Texas to circumvent the precedent set by Roe v. Wade on women's constitutional right to abortion. However, the Supreme Court's role in the Texas abortion debate is not yet over. There have been multiple legal challenges to the Texas abortion law, with abortion providers and advocates filing lawsuits arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has heard some of these cases, such as Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, where the court dismissed the claims of abortion providers against a state court judge, court clerk, and private citizen. The court allowed the claims against state licensing officials to proceed, acknowledging the need for further legal evaluation. Additionally, the court has declined to intervene in specific cases, such as when they rejected Biden's appeal in an emergency abortion case, upholding the lower court's order that hospitals cannot be required to provide abortions if it violates the Texas abortion ban.

The impact of the law on women's health

The Texas abortion law, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), has had a profound impact on women's health in the state. The law bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which typically occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy and often before women know they are pregnant. This restrictive law has had several direct and indirect consequences for women's health:

Increased maternal mortality and infant deaths: Research by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that infant deaths in Texas increased by 12.9% from 2021 to 2022, a year after the abortion ban was implemented. This rise in infant mortality was especially pronounced among infants with congenital anomalies. Additionally, the Gender Equity Policy Institute reported a 56% increase in maternal mortality cases in Texas from 2019 to 2022, compared to an 11% increase nationwide. This indicates that the abortion ban has had a detrimental effect on the health and safety of pregnant women in the state.

Limited access to healthcare: The abortion ban has forced many women in Texas to seek reproductive healthcare out of state, creating additional stress and financial burdens. Women are expressing "deep fear" that their abortion procedures will be discovered, leading to criminalization or other repercussions. The law has also made it challenging for women to access prenatal care and obtain appointments with OB-GYNs.

Mental health concerns: The abortion ban has caused significant mental distress among women in Texas. Dr. Leah Tatum, an OB-GYN in Austin, Texas, reported that requests for sterilization procedures among her patients doubled after the abortion ban. Women are concerned about the potential consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and feel backed into a corner, with limited options for termination even in cases of genetically abnormal fetuses.

Increased health risks during pregnancy: The ban has resulted in women being forced to carry high-risk pregnancies to term, endangering their health and lives. Kaitlyn Kash, a resident of Austin, Texas, shared her experience of having to travel out of state to terminate a doomed pregnancy due to severe skeletal dysplasia in the fetus. She faced harassment from protesters outside the medical clinic, highlighting the emotional toll of seeking abortion care under these restrictive laws.

Legal consequences: Women who undergo abortions or assist others in doing so face the risk of legal repercussions. Collin Davis, a Texas resident, attempted to use SB8 to obtain depositions from his ex-partner and those who helped her obtain a legal abortion in Colorado. Additionally, state officials have shown interest in surveilling and potentially prosecuting abortion-seeking residents, despite initially claiming they would not target pregnant women.

The impact of the Texas abortion law on women's health has been far-reaching and detrimental. It has limited women's access to essential healthcare services, increased health risks during pregnancy, and contributed to a rise in maternal and infant mortality. The law has also taken a toll on the mental health and well-being of women in Texas, who face fear and uncertainty due to the restrictive nature of the legislation.

The law's enforcement mechanism

The Texas Heartbeat Act, or Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), is an act of the Texas Legislature that bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which usually occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy. The law came into effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers. It was the first time a state had successfully imposed a six-week abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, and the first abortion restriction to rely exclusively on enforcement by private individuals through civil lawsuits rather than state officials enforcing the law with criminal or civil penalties.

The Act authorises members of the public to sue anyone who performs or facilitates an illegal abortion for a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages per abortion, plus court costs and attorneys' fees. The private civil-enforcement feature of the law was engineered by former Stanford law professor Jonathan F. Mitchell, based on his 2018 Virginia Law Review article, "The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy". This noted that laws enforced solely by private citizens are nearly impossible to challenge in pre-enforcement lawsuits.

The Act's enforcement mechanism bars state officials from enforcing the law and instead authorises private individuals to sue those who perform or assist abortions after cardiac activity has been detected. Because the law is enforced by private citizens rather than government officials, abortion providers have been unable to obtain relief that will stop private lawsuits from being initiated against them. This produced an end-run around Roe v. Wade, which had established a federal constitutional right to abortion. The threat of private civil-enforcement lawsuits forced abortion providers to comply with SB 8 despite its incompatibility with the Supreme Court's then-existing abortion pronouncements.

The Act's unique enforcement mechanism has made it exceedingly difficult to challenge in court. Even when courts have declared SB 8 unconstitutional, abortion providers have remained in compliance with the Act because it purports to subject individuals to private civil-enforcement lawsuits if they perform or assist a post-heartbeat abortion while an injunction that blocks the law's enforcement is in effect. If that injunction is later vacated or reversed on appeal, providers would be subject to civil liability.

The private civil-enforcement feature of the law has also enabled the state to evade Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right. It has also led other states to copy SB 8's enforcement mechanism and immunise their restrictive abortion laws from judicial review. For example, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 4327 into law, outlawing abortion from the moment of fertilisation. Because HB 4237, like the Texas Heartbeat Act, is enforced solely through civil lawsuits brought by private citizens, abortion providers were unable to stop the law in court and ceased performing abortions.

The Act's enforcement mechanism has been criticised as "cynical" and "diabolical" by law professors who supported Roe v. Wade, such as Laurence Tribe and Michael C. Dorf. Opponents of abortion have praised the Act's circumvention of Roe v. Wade as "brilliant" and "genius".

The Act's enforcement mechanism has also been the subject of legal challenges. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, abortion providers challenged the sovereign immunity portion of the law, arguing that because judges and clerks are involved with enforcement of SB 8, they can be defendants to legal challenges. The Supreme Court rejected this idea, holding that abortion providers could not sue state-court judges or court clerks under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In United States v. Texas, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a suit against the state, claiming that the law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The DOJ asked for an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction of SB8, but Texas challenged the standing of the federal government to seek remedies against private individuals and sought dismissal of their case. District Judge Robert L. Pitman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the Act, but Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which put a hold on Pitman's order. The Supreme Court declined to grant the DOJ's emergency request to lift the Fifth Circuit's stay, and the case was dismissed.

The Act's enforcement mechanism has also been the subject of state-court challenges by abortion providers and funders, who have filed a total of 14 lawsuits against Texas Right to Life and the organisation's officers, employees, and collaborators, challenging S.B.8 as unconstitutional under various provisions of the state constitution. These lawsuits remain pending in a Travis County district court.

The law's author and sponsors

The Texas abortion law, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8), was authored by Republican state senator Bryan Hughes. The law was signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott in May 2021 and took effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers.

The law bans abortions after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which typically occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy and often before many women are aware of their pregnancy. It is enforced solely by private citizens through civil lawsuits, rather than by state officials, who are prohibited from enforcing the law. This unique enforcement mechanism was engineered by former Stanford law professor Jonathan F. Mitchell and has been highly controversial, as it effectively circumvents Roe v. Wade by insulating the law from effective judicial review.

The bill was introduced in the Texas Senate by Senator Bryan Hughes and in the Texas House of Representatives by Representative Shelby Slawson. It was a legislative priority for Republican lawmakers and passed with bipartisan support. The final bill outlines two conditions under which doctors can legally provide abortions: preterm premature rupture of membranes and ectopic pregnancies.

The Texas Heartbeat Act has been subject to numerous lawsuits challenging its constitutionality, but it has withstood these legal challenges thus far and remains in effect. The law's enforcement mechanism, which bars state officials from enforcing the law and instead authorizes private citizens to sue those who perform or assist with abortions, has made it exceedingly difficult for abortion providers to obtain legal relief.

Frequently asked questions