Texas Heartbeat Act

For the carbamate nerve agent also known as SB-8, see TL-599. For the law at issue in Roe v. Wade, see Texas abortion statutes (1961).

The Texas Heartbeat Act, 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 normally occurs after about six weeks of pregnancy. The law took effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers.^[1] It is the first time a state has successfully imposed a six-week abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, and the first abortion restriction to rely solely on enforcement by private individuals through civil lawsuits, rather than having state officials enforce the law with criminal or civil penalties. The act authorizes 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.^[2][3][4]

Texas Heartbeat Act
Texas Legislature
Long title An Act relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.
Passed by	Senate
Passed	30 March 2021
Passed by	House of Representatives
Passed	6 May 2021
Signed by	Governor Greg Abbott
Signed	19 May 2021
Commenced	September 1, 2021 (2021-09-01)
Legislative history
First chamber: Senate
Bill citation	Full Text of SB 8 with signatures of: Senate President Dan Patrick House Speaker Dade Phelan Secretary of State vacant House Chief Clerk Robert Haney Governor Greg Abbott
Introduced by	Bryan Hughes (R–1)
Passed	30 March 2021
Voting summary	19 voted for 12 voted against
Second chamber: House of Representatives
Passed	6 May 2021
Voting summary	83 voted for 64 voted against 2 absent 1 present not voting
Status: In force

The Texas Heartbeat Act has been subjected to numerous lawsuits in state and federal court, but the statute has thus far withstood each of these court challenges and remains in effect. Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Act have been filed by abortion providers and advocates,^[5] as well as the United States Department of Justice,^[6][7] but none of these lawsuits have been able to restore access to post-heartbeat abortions in Texas. The law has been exceedingly difficult to challenge in court because of its unique enforcement mechanism, which bars state officials from enforcing the law and instead authorizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs or assists a post-heartbeat abortion.^[8][9] 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.^[10] This produced an end-run around Roe v. Wade, which had established a federal constitutional right to abortion, because 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.^[11][12]

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.^[13][14][15] On October 6, 2021, federal district Judge Robert L. Pitman issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the state of Texas from enforcing the law,^[16] which remained in effect until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of Pitman's order two days later.^[17] Yet Pitman's order was unable to fully restore access to post-heartbeat abortions in Texas, even during the 48-hour window in which it was in effect, because abortion providers were unwilling to risk the civil liability that would be imposed if Pitman's injunction were stayed or overturned by a higher court.^[14][18] The U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn the Fifth Circuit's stay of Pitman's ruling,^[19][20] so any post-heartbeat abortions performed in reliance on Pitman's injunction are subject to private civil-enforcement lawsuits under the terms of SB 8.^[13] This has made it difficult for abortion providers to resume services even when they obtain relief from a lower court that pronounces the statute unconstitutional, and it has further frustrated efforts to thwart the statute's enforcement in court.

The success of the Texas Heartbeat Act was a major blow to Roe v. Wade,^[21][22] as it provided a blueprint for states to outlaw abortion while insulating their laws from effective judicial review.^[23] This enabled the states to evade Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings that had declared abortion to be a constitutionally protected right.^[24][25] It also led other states to copy SB 8's enforcement mechanism and immunize their restrictive abortion laws from judicial review. On May 25, 2022, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 4327 into law,^[26] which outlaws abortion from the moment of fertilization.^[27] 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 in Oklahoma, even though the Supreme Court had not yet overruled Roe v. Wade when the statute took effect.^[28][29] Idaho has also enacted a six-week abortion ban modeled after the Texas Heartbeat Act, which prevented abortion providers from challenging the constitutionality of the statute in federal court.^[30]

Background

Further information: Six-week abortion ban

 

Texas Senator Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) introduced and authored the Texas Heartbeat Act

A different six-week abortion ban, HB 59, was previously introduced in Texas by Representative Phil King on July 18, 2013.^[31] The bill did not pass.^[32][33] In 2019, another six-week abortion ban was introduced as HB 1500, which was jointly authored by Representatives Briscoe Cain, Phil King, Dan Flynn, Tan Parker, and Rick Miller.^[34] As of February 26, 2019, HB 1500 had 57 sponsors or cosponsors of the 150 members of the Texas House of Representatives.^[35] HB 1500, like HB 59, relied on conventional public enforcement by state officials, similar to laws that had been enacted in other states.^[36] HB 1500 did not pass.^[37]

On March 11, 2021, the Texas Heartbeat Bill (Senate Bill 8 or SB 8 for short) was introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes.^[38][39] A companion bill (HB 1515) was filed by Representative Shelby Slawson a day later in the Texas House of Representatives.^[40] Unlike HB 1500, SB 8 and HB 1515 contained a novel enforcement mechanism designed to shield the law from pre-enforcement judicial review. Each of the bills explicitly forbade state officials to enforce the law in any way, and instead authorized private individuals to sue those who perform or assist abortions after cardiac activity had been detected for $10,000 per abortion, plus costs and attorneys' fees. In structuring the law this way, the authors sought to shield it from judicial review in federal court, because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a state statute must be brought against state officials charged with enforcing the disputed law, rather than against the state itself.^[41] And without a state official who enforces the law, there is no one for abortion providers to sue pre-enforcement; they must instead wait to be sued in state court by a private individual and assert their constitutional claims as a defense to liability in those private civil-enforcement proceedings.^[42]

The private civil-enforcement feature of the law was engineered by former Stanford law professor Jonathan F. Mitchell.^[43][44] The idea was based on his 2018 Virginia Law Review article, "The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy",^[45][46] which noted that laws enforced solely by private citizens are nearly impossible to challenge in pre-enforcement lawsuits. He later brought this idea to the attention of Mark Lee Dickson, an East Texas anti-abortion pastor, in 2019.^[43][47][48] Dickson was able to persuade the city council of Waskom, Texas, to enact an ordinance that outlawed abortion within city limits through the private civil-enforcement mechanism proposed by Mitchell, although it was mostly a symbolic move as the town had no abortion providers.^[49] Dickson then championed for similar laws to be passed in other towns and cities in Texas over the following years, including Lubbock, where a Planned Parenthood facility halted abortion procedures following passage of the local law.^[47][50] Mitchell helped Hughes draft the bill for the state based on the municipal ordinances he had written as a means of avoiding pre-enforcement judicial scrutiny, primarily by taking state officials out of enforcing the abortion ban and leaving enforcement entirely in the hands of private individuals.^[47][51]

The bill was a legislative priority of Republican lawmakers for the 2021 regular session, denoted 87(R).^[52][53] The Senate version was approved by both houses of the bicameral Texas legislature after the Senate concurred with House amendments.^[54] Texas governor Greg Abbott signed the bill on May 19, 2021, and it took effect on September 1, 2021.^[55]

Provisions

The Texas Heartbeat Act contains twelve sections.^[56] Although the Act is best known for its provisions that outlaw abortion after cardiac activity has been detected, and that authorize private lawsuits against those who violate the Act, the Act includes other provisions that further restrict abortion and deter litigants from challenging abortion laws in court.^[57] It is regarded as one of the most aggressive and far-reaching pieces of anti-abortion legislation that has ever been enacted.^[58]

Section 2

Section 2 of the Act declares that Texas has never repealed, either expressly or by implication, its pre–Roe v. Wade statutes that outlaw and criminalize abortion unless the mother's life is in danger.^[59] The Texas pre-Roe abortion laws are still codified at articles 4512.1 through 4512.6 of the Revised Civil Statutes, and they impose felony criminal liability on anyone who performs an elective abortion, as well as anyone who "furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended".^[60] The punishment is two to five years' imprisonment for each abortion performed or facilitated, and the statute of limitations is three years.

By declaring that the state's pre-Roe criminal abortion have never been repealed, section 2 overrules McCorvey v. Hill, a 2004 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that Texas had implicitly repealed its pre-Roe criminal abortion statutes by enacting subsequent legislation that regulates the abortion procedure. It also ensures that all abortions performed in Texas—including abortions that occur before cardiac activity is detectable—are defined and regarded as criminal acts under Texas law, even though prosecutors in Texas cannot indict or charge abortion providers for their violations of these statutes until Roe v. Wade is overruled.

The enactment of section 2 has led Texas officials to threaten abortion funds and their donors with criminal prosecution under the state's pre-Roe abortion statutes.^[57][61] On March 18, 2022, Representative Briscoe Cain sent cease-and-desist letters to every abortion fund in Texas, demanding that they immediately stop paying for elective abortions performed in Texas.^[62] Cain warned that these abortion funds were violating the state's unrepealed pre-Roe abortion statutes by "furnishing the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended," and that every single one their employees, volunteers, and donors could face criminal prosecution for violating the state's pre-Roe laws.^[62] Cain pointed out that neither Roe v. Wade nor any other decision of the Supreme Court has ever created or recognized a constitutional right to pay for another person's abortion, and that Roe protects only abortion providers and their patients from prosecution under the state's pre-Roe criminal abortion prohibitions. Abortion funds in Texas have refused to halt their activities in response to Cain's letter, and Cain has promised to introduce legislation that will ensure that Texas abortion funds and their donors are prosecuted for each abortion that they have assisted in violation of the state's pre-Roe abortion laws.^[63]

Section 3

Section 3 of the Act requires a physician to test for a "fetal heartbeat" (or "cardiac activity")^[64] before performing an abortion and prohibits abortion if a "fetal heartbeat" is detected.^[65] The only exception is for when "a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance."^[66] The term "medical emergency" is not defined in the statute.^[67]

Section 3 includes a provision that specifically bans public enforcement of the law by state or local officials, and insists that the sole means of enforcement shall take place through civil-enforcement lawsuits brought by private individuals.^[68][69]

Section 3 also authorizes any private individual to sue anyone who performs or induces, or "aids and abets," a post-heartbeat abortion.^[70][71] Although the statute shields abortion patients from being named as defendants,^[67][72] anyone else who "aids or abets" an unlawful abortion can be sued in addition to the physician performing the procedure. That includes staff members at clinics, counselors, lawyers, financiers, and those who provide transportation to an abortion clinic, including drivers of a taxi or ride-hailing companies.^[3] The act encourages private enforcement by authorizing successful plaintiffs to collect "statutory damages" of "not less than $10,000" for each post-heartbeat abortion that the defendant performed or facilitated, in addition to court costs and attorney's fees if a defendant is found liable.^[70] Plaintiffs who bring these enforcement lawsuits are not required to have any personal connection to the patient or abortion provider.^[73]

Section 3 of the Act also insulates the state of Texas and its officials from being sued by preserving their sovereign immunity and forbidding them to enforce the statute in any way.^[67][74]

The Act allows defendants to escape liability if they demonstrate that the relief sought by the plaintiff will impose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.^[67][75] But the Act also provides that this "undue burden" defense is unavailable if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, even if the abortion occurred while those decisions were in effect,^[67][75] and it establishes a four-year statute of limitations. This subjects abortion providers and their enablers to future liability for abortions performed in reliance on Roe and Casey if those decisions are later overruled, and it deterred them from providing abortions even while Roe and Casey remained on the books.^[76]

Finally, section 3 allows civil-enforcement lawsuits to be filed in the plaintiff's home county, raising the prospect that anyone who violates or assists a violation of SB 8 could be forced to defend themselves in any one of Texas's 254 counties, including deep-red counties where judges and juries will likely be hostile to abortion.^[77][78]

Section 4

Section 4 of the Act requires litigants who challenge the constitutionality of any Texas abortion restriction to pay the attorneys' fees of "prevailing parties" if their challenge is unsuccessful.^[67][79] Section 4 also imposes joint and several liability on the attorneys and law firms that sue to enjoin the enforcement of any Texas abortion law.^[67][79]

At midnight, immediately after the law went into effect, many clinics in Texas including Planned Parenthood stopped performing abortion procedures and stopped taking new appointments.^[80] Many clinics reported an increase in patients at their clinics who had completed the 24-hour waiting period and sought to have the procedure done before the midnight deadline.^[81]

The act contains exceptions in the case of medical emergency, such as if the mother is at risk of death or severe irreversible bodily harm. It makes no exceptions for rape or incest.^[82] Because enforcement of the law relies upon civil reporting, there are provisions that state no "perpetrator of an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code" may be involved in the reporting process.^[83] On September 7, 2021, Governor Abbott asserted that the Act does not force raped women to carry pregnancies to term because the state would "work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets".^[84]

Significance

The act is the first time since Roe v. Wade that a state has successfully outlawed abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, even for a brief period of time.^[3] In Texas, an estimated 85% of abortions had been performed after the six-week mark, which is often shortly after a pregnant woman misses her menstrual period, and before many women have confirmed or are aware of a pregnancy.^[3][85][86]

The Texas Heartbeat Act is unique in that it is enforced exclusively through civil lawsuits brought by private citizens, rather than criminal or civil penalties imposed by state officials. This was engineered to deny abortion providers the opportunity to seek federal-court injunctions against the enforcement of the statute. Since the law cannot be enforced by state officials but only by private individuals, it is difficult for abortion providers to identify the proper defendants to sue in a pre-enforcement lawsuit, which prevents them from challenging the constitutionality of the act prior to its taking effect.^[87] As one commentator explained: "Abortion clinics are now in an impossible bind because on the one hand, there is no one to sue because no state official is allowed to enforce the law, while on the other hand, there are too many people to sue because they can’t identify who among the millions of Texas pro-lifers will step forward to enforce the law."^[88]

In light of this feature in the law, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "the statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime."^[2]

A study produced by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin predicted that the bill would prohibit 80% of abortions in Texas and would disproportionately affect black women, lower-income women, and women who live far away from facilities that provide abortion services.^[89]

Academic opinions

The Texas Heartbeat Act is intensely controversial because it was written to frustrate judicial review and thwart the judiciary from enforcing Supreme Court precedents that declared abortion to be a constitutionally protected right. That the Act succeeded in eliminating access to pre-viability abortions in Texas while Roe v. Wade ostensibly remained the law of the land has only added to the controversy surrounding the law. Law professors that supported Roe v. Wade, such as Laurence Tribe and Michael C. Dorf, have criticized the Act and its enforcement mechanism as "cynical"^[90] and "diabolical".^[91] Opponents of abortion have praised the Act's circumvention of Roe v. Wade as "brilliant",^[92] and "genius".^[93]

Legal experts have noted that the act's enforcement model is not entirely new as it bears similarities to existing private attorney general laws. These laws grant special circumstances in which the plaintiff, a private citizen, can bring suit despite not suffering direct injury. Many of these involve qui tam suits where the plaintiff brings suit on behalf or in support of the government and is allowed to benefit if the suit succeeds. For example, several environmental pollution laws allow for individuals to bring suit against companies or individuals who have broken government environmental statutes; the False Claims Act allows for individuals to sue if there is evidence that the defendant has tried to defraud the government.^[94][95] However, this enforcement model, if utilized in similar ways to how SB8 implements it, could be used to limit other rights and freedoms that the people enjoy including like the right to bear arms, free speech, and gay marriage.^[70][96] For example, in an op-ed piece for The Hill in September 2021, Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of law at Harvard, suggested that liberal states could enact laws offering similar bounties for citizen lawsuits against anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.^[97] Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan expressed these concerns while hearing arguments in United States v. Texas.^[98][99] Some analysts have argued that as wrong as SB8's utilization of private citizen enforcement is, the enforcement model itself still holds merit. They draw a distinction between the ways in which the model is utilized and the intent. In qui tam cases, private individuals bring suit alongside and in support of government officials and these suits are still under government supervision while in SB8, the Texas government would be barred from participating in the suit. The other would be the intent of the law; up until Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was decided, the right to abortion was considered to be protected by the Constitution. While environmental pollution lawsuits seek to aid the government in dealing with cases of the law being broken, SB8 was an unprecedented instance of private individuals being granted the right to deprive another individual of a (then) federally protected right. This led one commentator to note that "Rather than a "private attorney general" statute, it is a private vigilante law".^[94][95]

Academic opinion is divided on whether the Act can be subject to pre-enforcement judicial review given that no state officials are charged with enforcing the law and are, in fact, prohibited from enforcing it. In an op-ed published in The New York Times, law professors Laurence Tribe and Steve Vladeck acknowledged that the Act's enforcement mechanism "makes it very difficult, procedurally, to challenge the bill's constitutionality in court", but argued that abortion providers "should" still be able to challenge the law's constitutionality by suing state-court judges and court clerks.^[90] The Supreme Court rejected this idea in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, holding that abortion providers could not sue state-court judges or court clerks under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Other legal scholars, such as Harvard's Stephen Sachs,^{[100][101][102]} Yale's Akhil Reed Amar,^[103] and Edward Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center,^[104] have argued that SB8's unique design precludes abortion providers from challenging the constitutionality of the statute in pre-enforcement litigation.^[105]

Tribe has suggested ways for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to combat the effects of the Texas Heartbeat Act. In an op-ed published by The Washington Post on September 5, 2021, Tribe urged DOJ to prosecute any individual who sues an abortion provider under sections 241 or 242 of the federal criminal code, which make it a crime to deprive individuals of any constitutional rights.^[106][107] Tribe and Risenberg also suggested using a "civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act" of 1871 to deter individuals from suing abortion providers who violate the Texas Heartbeat Act,^[107] and recommended that the U.S. Attorney General launch criminal prosecutions and sue private parties under the Act on the grounds of deprivation of rights under color of law.^[108] The two also cited the precedent of Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.,^[109] as an argument against the constitutionality of delegating certain government decisions to private parties. At the time of writing, the DOJ had not yet acted on any of Tribe's suggestions.

The private remedies authorized by SB 8 can only be awarded by a state court in a lawsuit brought under SB 8, which is why Whole Women's Health and a group of abortion providers sued a Texas judge under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act to enjoin him and a defendant class of all other Texas trial-level judges from entertaining SB 8 lawsuits. On September 10, 2021, a motions panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the idea that state judges and their court clerks could be sued in federal court to prevent them from hearing SB 8 cases, characterizing the approach as absurd.^[110]

Legal challenges

Pre-enforcement litigation by providers and advocates

A Dallas attorney filed a lawsuit and accompanying request for a restraining order in Dallas Texas District Court attempting to block the bill, arguing that the language of the law prevents attorneys from consulting with clients about abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and is thus a violation of attorney-client privilege and victims rights of the sexually abused.^[111] This action was nonsuited and refiled in Travis County (Austin, Texas), where it remains pending, along with numerous companion cases by abortion providers and funders, who are all represented by the same attorneys.

On September 3, 2021, a Travis County judge granted three Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates a temporary restraining order against Texas Right to Life, with a temporary injunction hearing set for September 13. The ruling temporarily blocks the anti-abortion group and affiliated individuals from suing them under the Act.^[112] Another trial court judge later signed an agreed temporary injunction order in the same case.^[113][114]

On December 9, 2021, a retired judge, sitting by appointment of the Texas Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, ruled that portions of the statute's civil enforcement mechanism violate the Texas Constitution, but did not grant a permanent injunction enjoining the law's enforcement.^[15] As of 2022, the case is on interlocutory appeal in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, and the law remains in effect.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Main article: Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Before the new law went into effect, a group of abortion providers led by Whole Woman's Health (WWH) sued to get a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of the law on September 1, 2021. Their suit included a state district court judge and his court clerk as representative defendants for all state judges and clerks that have jurisdiction to hear suits brought under the Heartbeat Act, in addition to other state officials include attorney general Ken Paxton, and a private individual that had publicly stated their intent to file suit against an abortion provider once SB 8 came into effect. The abortion clinics challenged the sovereign immunity portion of the law, stating that because the judges and clerks are involved with enforcement of SB 8, they can be defendants to legal challenges due to the Ex parte Young doctrine. In late August 2021, district judge Robert L. Pitman rejected a motion to dismiss the case and scheduled a hearing on the temporary injunction requested by the plaintiffs. An expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit led that court to stay the district court's proceedings, on the basis that the state official defendants were likely immune from being sued while the case against the private individual remained in consideration.^[115] The plaintiffs filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on August 30, 2021, seeking an order to block the Act from going into effect.^[116] Late on September 1, 2021, nearly 24 hours after the Act had come into force, the Supreme Court denied the motion in an unsigned order,^[117] though four Justices wrote or joined dissents that stated they would have granted the injunction pending legal evaluation. The majority opinion on the motion stressed that the denial of immediate relief did not preclude other legal challenges in lower federal or Texas state courts.^[118][119]

The Fifth Circuit issued a second order on September 10, 2021, ruling that the state judges, clerks, and other officials were not proper defendants, while the case against the private individual remained and was to be evaluated by the Circuit court at a later date. Again, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a pre-judgment writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court based on the Fifth Circuit's order, again seeking an injunction on the enforcement of SB 8.^{[120][121][122]} The Supreme Court, in its related actions to United States v. Texas, denied the plaintiff's motions in WWH v. Jackson, but certified the petition for the case, and scheduled its oral arguments alongside United States v. Texas for November 1, 2021.^[123]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on December 10, 2021, and dismissed the claims that Texas abortion providers had brought against a state-court judge, a court clerk, the state's attorney general, and a private citizen.^[124] The Court allowed the abortion providers' claims against state licensing officials to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage, and remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit.^[124] On remand, the Fifth Circuit asked the Supreme Court of Texas to resolve whether SB 8 allowed state licensing officials to enforce the law, and certified the case proceed to the state supreme court.^[125] In March, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas unanimously ruled that SB 8 explicitly forbids state licensing officials to enforce the law, ending the abortion providers' federal pre-enforcement challenge to SB 8.^[68] The state supreme court's ruling, along with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, leaves abortion providers without any possible defendants to sue in a federal pre-enforcement lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 8, because there are no state officials charged with enforcing the law.^[68]

United States v. Texas

Main article: United States v. Texas (2021)

United States Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on September 6, 2021, that the Justice Department (DOJ) will protect abortion seekers in Texas under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.^[126] The DOJ filed their suit against the state on September 9, 2021 in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, with the suit claiming "the law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity".^[127][128] The DOJ asked for an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction of SB8 on September 15, 2021.^[129] In its defense, Texas challenged the standing of the federal government to seek remedies against private individuals and sought dismissal of their case.^[130][131]

District judge Robert L. Pitman, who was also overseeing the WWH v. Jackson case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcing of the Act on October 6, 2021, ruling that the United States government does have standing to challenge Texas' law.^[132] Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 8, 2021,^[133][134] and in a per curiam decision that day, the Fifth Circuit put a hold on Pitman's order, "pending the court's consideration of the emergency motion".^[135] On October 14, 2021, the motions panel granted the State's and the three aligned Intervenors' motions for emergency stay in a brief order that merely referenced the decision rationales articulated by the SCOTUS and the Fifth Circuit in the pending WWH v. Jackson case.^[136] They also ordered that the appeal on the merits be jointly taken up on an accelerated basis by the same panel of the Fifth Circuit that will hear oral argument in the WWH v. Jackson appeal.

The DOJ filed an application for emergency relief from the Supreme Court on October 18, 2021.^{[137][138][139]} On October 22, 2021, the SCOTUS declined to grant the DOJ's emergency request to lift the Fifth Circuit's stay, but did grant the petition for certiorari before judgment and set expedited oral arguments for November 1, 2021. In certifying the case, the Supreme Court limited the case to review the question of the standing raised by the state. The oral arguments for United States v. Texas will be heard alongside those for WWH v. Jackson.^[140][141] Justice Sotomayor concurred in the decision to hear the case on an expedited basis, but dissented on the denial of an immediate stay order in the interim.^[142]

The Supreme Court ruled in a per curiam decision on December 10, 2021, to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.^[20]

Other pending Supreme Court petitions

SCOTUS cases relating to United States v. Texas

No. 21-588,  United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., docketed October 14, 2021 in conjunction with consideration of application (21A85) to vacate Fifth Circuit stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument on November 1, 2021.

No. 21A85, United States, Petitioner v. Texas, et al., Application to vacate stay of preliminary injunction issued by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by the United States. Submitted to Justice Alito and referred to the Court. Consideration deferred pending oral argument on November 1, 2021.

SCOTUS cases relating to Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

• No. 21-587, Penny Clarkston, Petitioner v. Whole Woman's Health, et al., docketed October 21, 2021. Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. Response due November 22, 2021. Ms. Clarkston is the District Clerk serving the 114th District Court and other district courts in Smith County, Texas. The presiding judge of the 114th District Court is the primary official-capacity defendant in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson.
• No. 21-583, Stephen Brint Carlton, et al., Petitioners v. Whole Woman's Health, et al., docketed October 21, 2021. Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. Response due November 22, 2021.
• No. 21-582, Mark Lee Dickson, Petitioner v. Whole Woman's Health, et al., docketed October 21, 2021. Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. Response due November 22, 2021. Mr. Dickson is a private individual and anti-abortion activist, and was named as a defendant because abortion providers anticipated that he would bring SB8 actions against them.
• No. 21-463, Whole Woman's Health, et al., Petitioners v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, District Court of Texas, 114th District, et al. Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed on September 23, 2021, GRANTED on October 22, 2021. Oral argument set for Monday, November 1, 2021. Judge Jackson is on record as being anti-abortion and was named as a proposed class representative for all Texas judges who might hear SB8 cases.
• No. 21A24, Whole Woman's Health, et al., Applicants, v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al., docketed August 30, 2021. Application for emergency injunction denied by the court per curiam, with separate opinions issued by Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting; Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan join, dissenting; Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice BREYER and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting; and Justice Kagan, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting.

First lawsuits based on SB8 against abortion provider

On September 18, 2021, in an op-ed published by The Washington Post, San Antonio physician Alan Braid admitted that he had performed an abortion that was illegal under the Act on September 6. He stated that he performed the abortion "because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care." He acknowledged that he would be opening himself up to liability from civil lawsuits related to the Act.^[143][144]

On September 20, 2021, Oscar Stilley, a former lawyer in Arkansas, filed a lawsuit against Braid for providing the abortion.^[145] Stilley told reporters that he did it in an effort to speed up the process of getting the law reviewed. Another lawsuit by Felipe Gomez of Chicago was filed against Braid the same day. Gomez argues for the law to be declared unconstitutional as the law is illegal until Roe v. Wade is reversed or modified.^[146] Both lawsuits were commenced in San Antonio in the defendant's county. One is in forma pauperis. Both plaintiffs are not averse to publicity.^[147] Both have also intervened in the federal case brought by the DOJ against Texas. Legal experts expect SB 8 lawsuits brought by pro-abortion rights plaintiffs to fail for lack of a controversy and thus standing.

State-court challenges to SB8 by abortion providers and funders

Texas abortion providers, funders, and other pro-abortion plaintiffs filed a total of 14 other lawsuits, some before the Act's September 1, 2021, effectiveness date, against Texas Right to Life and the organization's officers, employees, and collaborators, challenging S.B.8 as unconstitutional under various provisions of the state constitution. The plaintiffs relied on the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The separate actions were subsequently consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the Texas Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litiation (MDL Panel) and remain pending in a Travis County district court. The MDL Panel assigned the Hon. David Peeples, a senior-status judge, to preside over the 14 cases.^[148]

With one exception, the 14 suits against Texas Right to Life originally also named state officials as defendants, including Governor Abbott and numerous GOP legislators, but these state officials were later nonsuited.

On December 9, 2021, Judge Peeples granted some of the declaratory relief requested by the plaintiffs but did not grant a permanent injunction, leaving that issue for a trial on the merits.^[149] Texas Right to Life and its legislative director immediately appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss, which resulted in a stay of further proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. The case style for the MDL cases is Van Stean v. Texas Right to Life, No. 03-21-00650-CV in the Third Court of Appeals and Cause No. D-1-GN-21-004179 in Travis County district court.

Aftermath

 

A Satanic Temple themed sign at a rally against the law at the Texas Capitol

The anti-abortion organization Texas Right to Life established a "whistleblower reporting system" that enabled residents to anonymously report suspected violators of the bill.^[150] Their website came under denial-of-service and satirical attacks featuring copypastas and eroticized fan-art of Shrek based on the prevalent internet meme,^[151] as well as profuse non-pertinent and misleading information.^[152][153] On September 3, 2021, webhost GoDaddy gave the website 24 hours to find a new host before terminating their service for multiple terms-of-service violations.^[154] On September 4, the website changed its domain registration to Epik, a registrar and web hosting company known for providing services to websites which have been denied service for content policy violations by other providers. The site went offline later that day, after Epik told the group they had violated their terms of service by collecting private information about third parties; the website subsequently began redirecting users to the Texas Right to Life organization's website.^[155]

A non-profit organization that supports abortion-rights announced that after the law went into effect their website traffic had increased with a large number of traffic coming from Texas. Through the site, visitors can view information about abortion pills and care providers.^[156]

On September 4, 2021, The Satanic Temple, a self-described nontheistic religious and human rights group, filed a letter of complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration arguing that the law violated the constitutional rights of members to free religious practice, referring specifically to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.^[157]

Reactions

Ride-sharing services Lyft and Uber announced that they would cover 100% of the legal defense costs for any of their drivers sued under this new law, while dating app companies Bumble and Match Group, owner of Tinder, announced they would establish a relief fund to assist Texas women seeking abortions.^[158][159]

John Gibson, the CEO of the video game developer/publisher Tripwire Interactive, tweeted in support of the bill and the Supreme Court's decision to not block its enforcement on September 4, 2021. Over the next few days, video game journalists, other developers, and members of the players' community expressed outrage at the tweet, leading to Gibson stepping down as CEO on September 6, 2021, and Tripwire distancing itself from Gibson's statement.^[160]

Protests

On the day the act went into effect, protesters rallied in the Texas state capital of Austin, Texas.^[161] Women in Dallas protested while wearing costumes from The Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian novel about women living in a totalitarian theocracy.^[162] Other small demonstrations were organized near city halls of other Texas towns.^[163] The day after the bill was enacted, the hashtag #texastaliban, a critical reference to the Taliban, trended on Twitter with over 50,000 tweets.^[150]

 

Pussy Riot performing at the 2021 Women's March at the Texas Capitol

On September 3, hacktivist group Anonymous announced "Operation Jane", an initiative to oppose the law. The group subsequently hacked the website of the Republican Party of Texas, replacing it with text about Anonymous, an invitation to join Operation Jane, and a Planned Parenthood donation link.^[164] On September 13, the group released a large quantity of private data belonging to Epik, including domain purchase and transfer details, account credentials and logins, payment history, employee emails, and unidentified private keys.^[165] The Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets) organization said later that day that they were working to curate the allegedly leaked data for public download, and said that it consisted of "180 gigabytes of user, registration, forwarding and other information".^[166] Publications including The Daily Dot and The Record by Recorded Future subsequently confirmed the veracity of the hack and the types of data that had been exposed.^[167][168]

Protests occurred in about 600 places nationwide on October 2. They were called the 2021 Women's March.^[169]

Public opinion on the law is divided, with two polls showing a narrow majority support the new legislation. One poll showed that roughly 55% of Texans support the law, compared to 45% who oppose it.^[170] Another poll showed a plurality of 46% of Texans supporting the law, while 43% remain opposed.^[171]

Political reactions

President Joe Biden criticized the act, describing it as "extreme" and saying it "blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade".^[172] Senator Elizabeth Warren argued that it is time to "step up and codify Roe into federal law".^[150] Congressional candidate for the 28th district of Texas, Jessica Cisneros, also spoke out against the act, stating that the law puts women at risk and it has a disproportionate impact on women of color and low income women. She stated: "When laws that push access to reproductive health care out of reach take effect, it's always women of color and low-income communities that are most harmed. Others who have the resources and connections will always find a way to receive the care they need."^[173]

Some Republicans, such as South Dakota governor Kristi Noem praised the act, while others (including 2021 Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell) were more leery.^[174] Some other states, including Florida^[175] and Ohio,^[176] have introduced legislation with language that mimics the Texas law.

On December 11, 2021, a day after the Supreme Court effectively upheld enforcement of the law in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, Governor Gavin Newsom of California called for the state legislature to apply the legal framework from Texas' law to gun control, seeking a bill that would introduce a private right of action against manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of assault weapon or ghost gun supplies in the state.^[177][178]

At the end of April 2022, the Connecticut General Assembly passed House Bill 5414, the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, which allows anyone sued under the Texas law, or others like it, for performing or facilitating an abortion which took place at least in part in Connecticut to countersue in that state for the equivalent amount of damages, plus attorney's fees. It also prohibits the governor of Connecticut from extraditing any Connecticut resident to another state for performing an abortion legal in Connecticut, bars courts in the state from issuing subpoenas or any orders related to such enforcement in another state, and prohibits any state or law enforcement agency in Connecticut from cooperating with such investigations.^[179]

In July 2022, California governor, Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1327, which is modeled after the Texas law, but allows private citizens to sue a licensed firearms dealer who "sells, supplies, delivers, or gives possession or control of a firearm" to anyone under 21 years old. It allows citizens to sue for a minimum of $10,000 on each weapon involved, as well as attorney fees.^[180]

See also

• Abortion in Texas
• Abortion in the United States
• City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
• Faith2Action
• Six-week abortion ban
• Heart development
• Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

References

1. "Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 21A24" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. September 1, 2021.
2. Liptak, Adam; Tavernise, Sabrina (September 1, 2021). "After Silence From Supreme Court, Texas Clinics Confront Near-Total Abortion Ban". The New York Times. ISSN 1553-8095. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
3. de Vogue, Ariane (September 1, 2021). "Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction". CNN. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
4. Keshner, Andrew. "Texas abortion law: $10,000 penalty could incentivize 'bounty hunters' to make 'tens of thousands of dollars'". MarketWatch.
5. "Complaint, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 1:21-cv-00616 (W.D. Tex.) (July 13, 2021)" (PDF). reproductiverights.org. Retrieved December 24, 2021.
6. Devlin Barrett; Ann E. Marimow (September 9, 2021). "Justice Department sues Texas to block six-week abortion ban". The Washington Post.
7. "Complaint" (PDF). documentcloud.org. US DOJ. Retrieved September 9, 2021.
8. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.207–171.208". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved December 24, 2021.
9. Tavernise, Sabrina (July 9, 2021). "Citizens, Not the State, Will Enforce New Abortion Law in Texas". www.newyorktimes.com. Retrieved December 24, 2021.
10. "Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. December 10, 2021. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
11. Gershman, Jacob (September 4, 2021). "Behind Texas Abortion Law, an Attorney's Unusual Enforcement Idea". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 24, 2021.
12. Blackburn, Jeremy (August 31, 2021). "Abortion providers scramble to respond to patients before new Texas law takes effect". houstonchronicle.com. Retrieved December 24, 2021.
13. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.208(e)(3)". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
14. Caroline Kitchener; Emily Wax-Thibodeaux; Ann E. Marimow; Casey Parks (October 7, 2021). "Despite latest court ruling blocking Texas abortion law, most providers are still reluctant to defy ban". The Washington Post.
15. Oxner, Reese; Klibanoff, Eleanor (December 9, 2021). . The Texas Tribune. Archived from the original on September 8, 2022.
16. Sneed, Tierney (October 6, 2021). "Federal judge issues order blocking Texas' 6-week abortion ban". CNN. Retrieved October 6, 2021.
17. Goodman, J. David (October 9, 2021). "Most Abortions in Texas Are Banned Again After Court Ruling". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 9, 2021.
18. Paul J. Weber; Jessica Gresko (October 7, 2021). "EXPLAINER: The Texas abortion law's swift impact, and future". The Associated Press.
19. "United States v. Texas, No. 21A85" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. October 22, 2021.
20. "United States v. Texas, No. 21-588" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. December 10, 2021.
21. Kelley, Lauren (September 1, 2021). "Is This How Roe v. Wade Dies?". The New York Times. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
22. Goldberg, Michelle (September 1, 2021). "Republicans Are Giving Abortion Opponents Power Over the Rest of Us". The New York Times. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
23. Milhiser, Ian (September 2, 2021). "The staggering implications of the Supreme Court's Texas anti-abortion ruling". Vox. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
24. Marcus, Ruth (September 2, 2021). "Opinion: The Supreme Court aids and abets Texas in violating women's constitutional rights". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
25. Marcus, Ruth (January 21, 2022). . The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 25, 2022. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
26. "Text of HB 4327" (PDF). legiscan.com. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
27. Vander Ploeg, Luke (May 25, 2022). "Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill That Bans Most Abortions". New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
28. Kitchener, Caroline (June 4, 2022). "Empty clinics, no calls: The fallout of Oklahoma's abortion ban". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
29. Hammer, Josh (June 5, 2022). "Roe v. Wade Is Already Dead". CDN. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
30. Zernike, Kate (March 14, 2022). "Idaho Is First State to Pass Abortion Ban Based on Texas' Law". The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
31. "Texas Legislators File Radical 'Fetal Heartbeat' Bill To Ban Abortion After Just Six Weeks". July 18, 2013. from the original on June 2, 2021. Retrieved June 2, 2021.
32. "Texas Legislature Online – 83(2) History for HB 59". Texas Legislature Online. Texas Legislature. from the original on March 11, 2018. Retrieved December 7, 2016.
33. "Representative Cain Files The Texas Heartbeat Bill". house.texas.gov. Texas House of Representatives. from the original on February 9, 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
34. "Texas Legislature Online – 86 History for HB 1500". Texas Legislature. from the original on February 9, 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
35. Young, Stephen (February 26, 2019). "More Than a Third of the Texas House Is Backing a Stealth Abortion Ban". Dallas Observer. from the original on February 26, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019. Fifty-seven of the 150 member body of the Texas House have signed on as authors, co-authors or sponsors of Cain's legislation.
36. "Text of HB 1500" (PDF). capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
37. "Texas Legislature Online – 86 History for HB 1500". Texas Legislature. from the original on February 9, 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
38. "History of SB 8". capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
39. Bella, Timothy (May 19, 2021). "Texas governor signs abortion bill banning procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy". The Washington Post. ISSN 2641-9599. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
40. "History of HB 1515". capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
41. Hughes, Bryan (September 12, 2021). "The Texas Abortion Law Is Unconventional Because It Had to Be". The Wall Street Journal.
42. Savage, Charlie (November 1, 2021). "Why is it so hard to challenge the Texas law?". The New York Times.
43. Gershman, Jacob (September 4, 2021). "Behind Texas Abortion Law, an Attorney's Unusual Enforcement Idea". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 24, 2021.
44. Marimow, Ann; Zapatosky, Matt; Kitchener, Caroline (September 2, 2021). "Texas abortion ban based on unusual legal strategy". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 12, 2021.
45. Mitchell, Jonathan F. (October 29, 2018). "The Writ-Of-Erasure Fallacy, 104 Va. L. Rev. 933 (2018)". ssrn.com. SSRN 3158038. Retrieved December 27, 2021.
46. "The Writ-Of-Erasure Fallacy, 104 Va. L. Rev. 933 (2018)". September 27, 2018.
47. Gresko, Jessica; Paul J., Weber (September 4, 2021). "Origin story of the Texas law that could upend Roe v. Wade". Associated Press. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
48. Littlefield, Amy (February 12, 2022). "A Strike at the Heart of Roe". Reveal. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
49. Stanley-Becker, Isaac (June 13, 2019). "Five men outlaw abortion in a Texas town, declaring a "sanctuary city for the unborn"". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
50. Najmabadi, Shannon (June 2, 2021). "Lawsuit to block Lubbock's abortion ban is dismissed in court as the ordinance takes effect". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
51. Blackman, Jeremy (September 9, 2021). "Seed for Texas abortion ban was planted 20 years ago, in Louisiana". The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
52. Najmabadi, Shannon (May 19, 2021). "Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation's strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy". The Texas Tribune. ISSN 0897-2710. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
53. Najmabadi, Shannon (March 18, 2021). "Texas lawmakers push bill to make it easier to sue abortion providers and harder for new anti-abortion laws to be blocked by courts". The Texas Tribune. ISSN 0897-2710. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
54. "Texas Legislature Online – 87(R) Actions for SB 8". capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved September 13, 2021.
55. Sandoval, Edgar; Montgomery, Dave (May 19, 2021). "Near-Complete Ban on Abortion Is Signed Into Law in Texas". The New York Times. San Antonio. ISSN 1553-8095. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
56. "Senate Bill 8" (PDF). capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
57. Littlefield, Amy (April 5, 2022). "Mastermind of the Texas 'Heartbeat' Statute Has a Radical Mission to Reshape American Law". Reveal. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
58. Caroline Kitchener (May 25, 2021). "There has never been an antiabortion law like the one just passed in Texas". The Lily.
59. "Senate Bill 8" (PDF). capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
60. "Vernon's Civil Statutes, Title 71. Chapter 6-1/2. Abortion". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
61. Roy, Matt (May 10, 2022). "Abortion funds under fire and could face strict new laws during 2023 session". news4sanantonio.com. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
62. Cain, Briscoe (March 18, 2022). "State Representative Briscoe Cain Sends Cease-And-Desist Letters to Abortion Funds in Texas". twitter.com. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
63. Klibanoff, Eleanor (March 29, 2022). "Abortion nonprofits say Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain defamed them in "cease-and-desist" letter". texastribune.com. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
64. "Texas Health and Safety Code § 171.201(1) (defining "fetal heartbeat" to mean "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac")". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
65. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.203–171.204". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
66. "Texas Health and Safety Code § 171.205". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
67. Astor, Maggie (September 9, 2021). "Here's What the Texas Abortion Law Says". The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2021.
68. Zernike, Kate; Liptak, Adam (March 11, 2022). "Texas Supreme Court Shuts Down Final Challenge to Abortion Law". The New York Times. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
69. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.207". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
70. Kaye, Julia; Hearron, Marc (July 19, 2021). "Even people who oppose abortion should fear Texas's new ban". The Washington Post. ISSN 2641-9599. from the original on July 26, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
71. "Texas Health and Safety Code § 171.208(a)". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
72. "Texas Health and Safety Code § 171.206(b)(1)". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
73. "What banning abortion at 6 weeks really means". May 19, 2021. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
74. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.211". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
75. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.209". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
76. Cohen, David S. (October 3, 2021). "SB 8's Unnoticed "Sword of Damocles" Provision". Harvard Law & Policy Review. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
77. Kafka, Daniel (January 10, 2022). "Texas Deputies and S.B. 8". Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
78. "Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.210". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
79. "Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 30.022". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved December 30, 2021.
80. Oxner, Reese (September 1, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court refuses to block Texas' six-week abortion ban". The Texas Tribune. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
81. Goins-Phillips, Tre (September 3, 2021). "Texas Clinic Boasts of Performing Nearly 70 Abortions in 17 Hours Just Before Heartbeat Bill Takes Effect". CBN News. Retrieved September 3, 2021.
82. "Senate Bill 8" (PDF). capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
83. "Texas Heartbeat Act". Texas Legislature Online. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
84. Cohen, Rebecca; Panetta, Grace (September 7, 2021). "Gov. Abbott said Texas would 'eliminate all rapists from the streets' so women don't have to worry about the new anti-abortion law having no exception for rape". Business Insider. Retrieved September 8, 2021.
85. Rabin, Roni Caryn (September 1, 2021). "Answers to Questions About the Texas Abortion Law". The New York Times. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
86. McCammon, Sarah. "What The Texas Abortion Ban Does — And What It Means For Other States". NPR.org. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
87. Manian, Maya (2007). "Privatizing Bans on Abortion: Eviscerating Constitutional Rights through Tort Remedies". Temple Law Review. 80: 123. from the original on September 3, 2021. Retrieved September 3, 2021.
88. Roger Severino (September 2, 2021). "Texas's Absolutely Genius Victory for Life". National Review. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
89. "Texas Senate Bill 8: Medical and Legal Implications" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on July 14, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
90. Tribe, Laurence; Vladeck, Stephen (July 19, 2021). "Texas Tries to Upend the Legal System With Its Abortion Law". The New York Times. Retrieved January 2, 2022.
91. Dorf, Michael C. (September 7, 2021). "Texas Could Not Get Away With This Absent SCOTUS-Created Limits On Constitutional Adjudication". Dorf on Law. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
92. Robert Barnes (October 30, 2021). "Supreme Court embarks on most dramatic reckoning for abortion rights in decades". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
93. Roger Severino (September 2, 2021). "Texas's Absolutely Genius Victory for Life". National Review. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
94. Zambrano, Diego A.; Driscoll, Sharon (September 8, 2021). . Stanford Law School blog. Archived from the original on September 25, 2022. Retrieved October 26, 2022.
95. Alexander, Poppy; McLamb, Chris (November 11, 2021). . Harvard Law & Policy Review. Archived from the original on October 16, 2022. Retrieved October 25, 2022.
96. Kurwa, Rahim (April 20, 2022). . The Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on May 18, 2022. Retrieved October 26, 2022.
97. Cassens Weiss, Debra (September 16, 2021). "Dershowitz: Texas abortion bounty approach could be adopted in states that want to ban handgun ownership". ABA Journal. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
98. Oxner, Reese (November 1, 2021). . The Texas Tribune. Archived from the original on October 22, 2022. Retrieved October 26, 2022.
99. Newman, Nathan (February 10, 2022). . Slate. Archived from the original on August 7, 2022. Retrieved October 26, 2022.
100. Sachs, Stephen (November 2, 2021). "Limiting Principles and SB8". reason.com. Retrieved January 2, 2022.
101. Sachs, Stephen (November 5, 2021). "The SB8 Endgame". reason.com. Retrieved January 2, 2022.
102. Sachs, Stephen (November 5, 2021). "Principles and Limiting Principles for SB8". reason.com. Retrieved January 2, 2022.
103. Amar, Akhil (December 14, 2021). "The Court Astonishes — Special Guest Ed Whelan". amaricasconstitution.podbean.com. Retrieved January 2, 2022.
104. "Denial Should Have Been Unanimous". National Review. September 2, 2021.
105. Sachs, Stephen (November 2, 2021). "Proper Parties and SB8". reason.com. Retrieved January 2, 2022.
106. Tribe, Laurence (September 5, 2021). "Opinion: What the Justice Department should do to stop the Texas abortion law". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
107. The Editorial Board (September 9, 2021). "Opinion: The best way to fight the Texas abortion law". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 10, 2021.
108. Tribe, Laurence; Rosenberg, David (September 7, 2021). "How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law – We successfully invoked the civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act to prevent the neighbor of a Harvard Square restaurant from wielding a state-conferred veto power over the issuance of any liquor license within a 500-foot radius". Boston Globe. Retrieved September 7, 2021.
109. 459 U.S. 116 (1982)
110. "Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (5th Cir Sept. 10, 2021)" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. September 10, 2021.
111. "Dallas Attorney Files Restraining Order Challenging Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Bill". CBS News. August 23, 2021. from the original on August 27, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
112. DeBenedetto, Paul (September 3, 2021). "Texas Planned Parenthoods Granted Restraining Order Against Anti-Abortion Group Over New Law". KERA News.
113. "Agreed Temporary Injunction in Planned Parenthood v. Texas Right to Life (Sept. 13, 2021)" (PDF). Travis County District Court. September 13, 2021.
114. Jessica Schneider and Ariane de Vogue (September 13, 2021). "Texas judge issues injunction against anti-abortion group on enforcing new law". CNN. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
115. "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF — CLASS ACTION" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on July 17, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
116. Liptak, Adam (August 30, 2021). "Supreme Court Asked to Block Texas Law Banning Most Abortions". The New York Times. Washington, D.C. ISSN 1553-8095. from the original on August 31, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
117. "Decision on Petition for Injunctive Relief by Whole Women's Health" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. The Supreme Court. September 1, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.
118. Thomson-DeVeaux, Amelia (September 2, 2021). "Why Texas's Abortion Law May Go Too Far For Most Americans". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
119. Zhang, Andrew (August 31, 2021). "666 new Texas laws go into effect Sept. 1. Here are some that might affect you". The Texas Tribune. ISSN 0897-2710. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
120. "Fast-Tracking the Texas Abortion Ban Faces Hurdles in US Supreme Court". National Law Journal. Retrieved September 25, 2021.
121. Zimmermann, Carol (September 24, 2021). . Catholic News Service. Archived from the original on September 24, 2021. Retrieved September 25, 2021.
122. Edwards, Schaefer. "Pro-Choice Groups Beg U.S. Supreme Court To Hurry Up And Rule On Texas Abortion Ban". Houston Press. Retrieved November 14, 2021.
123. de Vogue, Ariane (October 22, 2021). "Supreme Court lets Texas 6-week abortion ban stay in place and will hear oral arguments November 1". CNN. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
124. "Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. December 10, 2021. Retrieved December 26, 2021.
125. Durkee, Alison. "Texas Abortion Law Sent to State Supreme Court". Forbes.
126. Staff (September 6, 2021). "Justice Department will 'protect' abortion seekers in Texas". AP News. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
127. "Docket for United States v. State of Texas, 1:21-cv-00796 - CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved September 13, 2021.
128. Cassens Weiss, Debra (September 9, 2021). "DOJ sues to block Texas abortion law, cites conflict with federal constitutional duties". ABA Journal. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
129. Oxner, Reese (September 15, 2021). "Federal judge will hear Texas' arguments against temporarily blocking abortion ban before ruling on Biden administration request". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
130. Lucas, Ryan and Carrie Johnson. "Texas' abortion law is back in court". NPR.org. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
131. Kendall, Brent (October 1, 2021). "Federal Judge Questions Texas Abortion Law in Case Filed by Justice Department". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
132. Cassens Weiss, Debra (October 7, 2021). "Federal judge who blocked Texas abortion law cites these reasons for US standing to sue". ABA Journal. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
133. Office of the Attorney General (Texas) (October 8, 2021). "Emergency Motion for Stay by Appellant State of Texas in USA v. Texas, No. 21-50949 (5th Cir. 2021)" (PDF).
134. "Texas AG Paxton asks federal appeals court to reinstate state's abortion law after a judge put a temporary hold on it". KXAN Austin. October 8, 2021. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
135. "Appeals court puts temporary hold on judge's order blocking Texas 6-week abortion ban". CNN. Retrieved October 9, 2021.
136. Cassens Weiss, Debra (October 15, 2021). "Once again, 5th Circuit keeps Texas abortion law in effect". ABA Journal. Retrieved October 15, 2021.
137. Weber, Paul (October 15, 2021). "Justice Department will ask Supreme Court to halt Texas abortion law". Los Angeles Times / Associated Press. Retrieved October 15, 2021.
138. Docket. "United States v. Texas, No. 21A85". Supreme Court of the United States.
139. Howe, Amy (October 18, 2021). "Biden administration asks justices to block enforcement of Texas abortion law". SCOTUSblog.
140. "United States v. Texas, No. 21A85 (No. 21-588), 595 U. S. ____ (Sept. 1, 2021)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. October 22, 2021.
141. Chung, Andrew (October 22, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas abortion ban". Reuters. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
142. Totenberg, Nina (October 22, 2021). "The Supreme Court keeps Texas abortion law in place, but agrees to review it". NPR. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
143. Braid, Alan (September 18, 2021). "Why I Violated Texas's Extreme Abortion Ban". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 18, 2021.
144. Levenson, Michael (September 18, 2021). "Texas Doctor Says He Performed an Abortion in Defiance of New State Law". The New York Times. Retrieved September 19, 2021. In an opinion essay in The Washington Post titled 'Why I violated Texas's extreme abortion ban,' Dr. Alan Braid wrote, 'I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly.'
145. Cassens Weiss, Debra (September 27, 2021). "Oscar Stilley, the convicted lawyer who sued a Texas abortion doctor, was disbarred over litigation conduct". ABA Journal. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
146. Jordan, Freiman (September 21, 2021). "Texas doctor who wrote op-ed about intentionally violating state's abortion ban sued under new law". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved September 21, 2021.
147. Chen, Vivia (October 5, 2021). "Meet the Quirky Plaintiffs Suing Under the Texas Heartbeat Act". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
148. Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel. "In re Texas Heartbeat Act Litigation, No. 21-0872 (MDL Panel Order October 14, 2021)". Texas Judiciary.
149. Jost, Timothy (2021). "The Courts Weigh In on the Texas Antiabortion Statute". Commonwealth Fund. The Commonwealth Fund. doi:10.26099/rwwc-j294. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
150. "'We will keep fighting': Reaction to Supreme Court ruling that lets Texas heartbeat bill stand". September 2, 2021. from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
151. "TikTokers flood Texas abortion whistleblower site with Shrek memes, fake reports and porn". The Guardian. September 3, 2021. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
152. "'We will keep fighting': Reaction to Supreme Court ruling that lets Texas heartbeat bill stand". Dallas News. September 2, 2021. from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
153. "Anti-abortion website attacked on eve of Texas' new abortion law". spectrumlocalnews.com. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
154. "GoDaddy is cutting off Texas Right to Life's abortion 'whistleblowing' website". September 3, 2021.
155. Kornfield, Meryl (September 6, 2021). "A website for 'whistleblowers' to expose Texas abortion providers was taken down — again". The Washington Post.
156. EDT, Fatma Khaled On 9/12/21 at 10:10 AM (September 12, 2021). "Texas women are now going online for abortion pills info after state's new ban, says nonprofit". Newsweek. Retrieved September 12, 2021.
157. Nowlin, Sanford (September 4, 2021). "The Satanic Temple begins legal maneuver to skirt Texas' new abortion ban". San Antonio Current. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
158. O'Kane, Sean (September 3, 2021). "Lyft and Uber to cover legal fees of drivers sued under Texas anti-abortion law". The Verge. Retrieved September 3, 2021.
159. Provenzano, Brianna (September 3, 2021). "Bumble and Match Have Created a Relief Fund to Help Cover Abortion Costs in Texas". Gizmodo. Retrieved September 3, 2021.
160. Prieb, Natalie (September 6, 2021). "Tech company CEO steps down after comments on Texas abortion law". The Hill. Retrieved September 7, 2021.
161. "Protesters rally against six-week Texas abortion ban". www.statesman.com. from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
162. "'Handmaid's Tale'-themed protest held in Dallas as new 'heartbeat' abortion law takes effect". wfaa.com. September 2, 2021. from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
163. "With Abortions On Hold, Some Texans Say It's Hard To Be Hopeful". KERA News. September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 3, 2021.
164. Novell, Carly (September 11, 2021). "Anonymous hacks Texas GOP website, floods it with memes". The Daily Dot. Retrieved September 15, 2021.
165. Goforth, Claire (September 14, 2021). "Anonymous to release massive data set of the far-right's preferred web hosting company". The Daily Dot. Retrieved September 14, 2021.
166. Ropek, Lucas (September 14, 2021). "Anonymous Claims to Have Stolen Huge Trove of Data From Epik, the Right-Wing's Favorite Web Host". Gizmodo. Retrieved September 14, 2021.
167. Thalen, Mikael (September 16, 2021). "'Worst I've seen in 20 years': How the Epik hack reveals every secret the far-right tried to hide". The Daily Dot. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
168. Cimpanu, Catalin (September 15, 2021). "Anonymous hacks and leaks data from domain registrar Epik". The Record by Recorded Future. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
169. Webber, Richard; Harte, Julia. "Texas rally launches day of U.S. protests against abortion restrictions".
170. https://uh.edu/hobby/txtrends/txtrends2021_report1.pdf^{[bare URL PDF]}
171. "Fight over Texas Abortion Law Divides Voters".
172. Barrón-López, Laura; Miranda Ollstein, Alice; Hooper, Kelly (September 1, 2021). "Biden: Texas abortion law 'blatantly violates' Roe precedent". Politico. from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
173. "Texas Just Banned Most Abortions". Teen Vogue. August 31, 2021. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
174. "Seeing danger, some in GOP leery of Texas abortion law". Associated Press. September 3, 2021.
175. "New Florida bill replicates Texas' sweeping abortion ban". Associated Press. September 22, 2021.
176. "Ohio Bill Copies Texas' Abortion Ban—And Goes Further. Here's Which States Could be Next". Forbes.
177. Hubler, Shawn (December 12, 2021). "Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law". The New York Times. Retrieved December 12, 2021.
178. "Governor Newsom Statement on Supreme Court Decision" (Press release). Sacramento, California: Office of the Governor of California. December 11, 2021. Retrieved December 12, 2021.
179. Stern, Mark Joseph (April 20, 2022). "Only One Blue State Is Fully Preparing for the Next Phase of the Abortion Wars". Slate. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
180. Stracqualursi, Veronica (July 22, 2022). "Newsom signs California gun bill modeled after Texas abortion law". CNN. Retrieved July 23, 2022.

External links

• U.S. v. Texas, no. 21-796 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 9, 2021); complaint filed by U.S. Justice Department to invalidate the Act.
• Docket and documents for United States v. State of Texas, No. 1:21-cv-796 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2021) and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Docket #: 21-50949