The court threw out the federal government’s challenge to the Texas law.
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Texas abortion clinics can sue the state for its strict new law but kept the measure in place.
The law went into effect earlier this year, which bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected in the fetus and allows anyone in the United States to sue a person who assists someone seeking an abortion. If the suits are successful, then the person suing can receive up to $10,000.
“The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not others,” the court said.
En même temps, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, cautioned that “the ultimate merits question” about the Texas law “is not before the Court,” nor was the wisdom about the law as policy.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent railed against the majority opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined in the dissent.
“The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today," elle a écrit.
“The chilling effect has been near total, depriving pregnant women in Texas of virtually all opportunity to seek abortion care within their home State after their sixth week of pregnancy," elle a écrit. “ Some women have vindicated their rights by traveling out of State. For the many women who are unable to do so, their only alternatives are to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or attempt self-induced abortions outside of the medical system.”
But Mr Gorsuch shot down Ms Sotomayor’s saying that the court was “shrink[ing] from the task of defending democracy over state law.”
“That rhetoric bears no relation to reality,” he said wrote.
Dans un rapport, Amy Hagstrom Miller, the CEO of Whole Women’s Health and the lead plaintiff in the case against the Texas law, expressed relief.
"Pour terminer, we have hope for an end to this horrific abortion ban. The legal back and forth has been excruciating for our patients and gut-wrenching for our staff," elle a dit. “We hope this law is blocked quickly so we can resume the full scope of abortion care we are trained to provide.”
en outre, Chief Justice John Roberts cautioned about the effects and the intent of the Texas law.
“The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings,” he wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”
En même temps, the court also threw out the federal government’s challenge to Texas’s law “improvidently granted.”