Civil and Human Rights

As Supreme Court weighs Texas abortion law, opposing sides focus on its impact

While lawyers and U.S. Supreme Court justices frequently zeroed in on esoteric legal points during Monday’s oral arguments over Texas’ restrictive abortion law, advocates on both sides of the issue took a much broader perspective.

Many abortion opponents focused on the number of abortions Senate Bill 8 has prevented by making the procedure illegal after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected, generally around the sixth week of gestation, before most women know they are pregnant.

“Over 9,000 Texan babies have been saved from abortion by the Texas heartbeat law since Sept. 1, and we refuse to let this bullying and abuse of power from the Biden administration and money-hungry abortion groups deter our commitment to protecting babies,” said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, a Christian advocacy group.

Abortion-rights advocates focused on the law’s impact on Texas women.

“Thousands of Texans are either being forced to travel hundreds of miles outside of their communities and across state lines to access basic health care, or they are being forced to carry pregnancies to term. This is unconscionable,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of America.

“The state of Texas has gone too far and SB 8 has gone on for too long — harming patients in Texas with each passing day,” she said.

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said the core issue before the Supreme Court — whether states can nullify a constitutional right while making it impossible for courts to respond — shouldn’t obscure the impact SB 8 has had on “real people.”

“The stakes of this case are enormous,” Wydra said. “If the court fails to stop SB 8 now, it will cause immediate, real harm and set a dangerous precedent for the right to access abortion across the nation.” 

But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a vocal opponent of abortion, said the Biden administration had overreached by claiming the power to sue Texas over its abortion regulation.

“I will oppose the federal government’s efforts to deprive Texans of the right to govern themselves,” Paxton said after Monday’s arguments in Washington. “I will always fight for the lives of the unborn, and this law puts our state in the forefront of protecting those without a voice.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans