In a two-to-one ruling among the three-judge panel, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling argued that the ban “unduly burdens a woman’s constitutionally protected right” to obtain an abortion, while forcing care providers “to act contrary to their medical judgment [and] the best interest of their patient.”
The law effectively bans the evacuation and dilation procedure, the most common procedure, after the first trimester, effectively banning abortions in the state for women after 12 weeks; pregnancy awareness is roughly at five-and-a-half or more than six weeks.
Judges James Dennis and Carl Stewart, both appointed by former president Bill Clinton, ruled to strike the law, while Donald Trump’s appointee Don Willett dissented.
The ruling arrived as Senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential candidate alongside Joe Biden to face Trump in November, grilled the president’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on the future of US healthcare.
The case could be among more than a dozen abortion-related rulings to appeal to the nation’s high court.
State Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, could also ask the full court to reconsider the ruling en banc.
Your daily US politics newsletter
Texas passed the law in 2017 but federal courts blocked it from taking effect, arguing that doctors would have to perform unproven and medically unnecessary methods to cause foetal demise before beginning a dilation and evacuation abortion.
Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in 2017 on behalf of Whole Woman’s Health and other providers in the state.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also argued that the dilation and evacuation method is “evidence-based and medically preferred because it results in the fewest complications for women compared to alternative procedures.”
“Efforts to ban specific types of procedures will limit the ability of physicians to provide women with the medically appropriate care they need, and will likely result in worsened outcomes and increased complications,” the organisation has said. “These legislative efforts are based on non-medical, subjective language. This language will create confusion, thus putting women at risk and, in certain cases, actually leading to abortion later in pregnancy.”
Under the Texas law, doctors who violated the ban could face up to two years in prison.
“Today’s decision puts a stop to Texas’s strategy to ban one abortion procedure after another until it is all but inaccessible, ” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
“Politicians should never decide what medical procedures a patient can and cannot receive,” she said in a statement. “This ruling follows decades of Supreme Court precedent and the Fifth Circuit has joined every other federal court in striking down these types of bans.”
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said with the ruling, “our physicians can continue to practise to the highest level of their training, and Texans will continue to benefit from their expertise. ”
The ruling arrives four months after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have closed all but one abortion health centre in the state. The high court struck down a similar Texas law in 2016.
Democrats fear that the confirmation of Judge Barrett – who has supported anti-abortion campaigns – could threaten the landmark decision in Roe v Wade, which provides constitutional protections for women’s healthcare, by tipping the body of the court to a conservative majority.
Healthcare advocates and abortion rights groups also fear that she could support the Trump administration’s challenge to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and jeopardise reproductive health coverage for millions of Americans.
“The Supreme Court’s vital role in protecting and upholding civil rights and liberties – including reproductive rights – cannot be compromised by a nominee fundamentally hostile to our constitutional rights,” the Center for Reproductive Rights said in a statement announcing its opposition to the judge’s confirmation.
Send your news and stories to us firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com and WhatsApp: +447747873668.
Before you go...
Democratic norms are being stress-tested all over the world, and the past few years have thrown up all kinds of questions we didn't know needed clarifying – how long is too long for a parliamentary prorogation? How far should politicians be allowed to intervene in court cases? To monitor these issues as closely as we have in the past we need your support, so please consider donating to The Climax News Room.