SCOTUS Says No To Abortion Providers’ Request To Stay ‘Heartbeat’ Law In Texas

Liberals who just love the idea of murdering unborn children in the womb are no doubt throwing massive temper tantrums after the Supreme Court rejected their plea to stay the law in Texas that bans most abortions after six weeks in a 5-4 decision on Thursday.

This ruling comes just one day after the law actually went into effect on Wednesday, banning abortions in almost all cases after the heartbeat of the child can be detected. The decision from the court sets up the possibility of a very huge, historic victory for the pro-life community by overturning a few of the precedents that were set back in 1992 by the Planned Parenthood v. Casey and in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade.

via Daily Wire:

While Texas is not the first state to enact such legislation, known as “heartbeat” laws, Texas’s case is the first to avoid a stay preventing the law from taking effect. The Supreme Court decided in a narrow decision against granting relief to a group of abortion providers in the state. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing in dissenting.

The court’s conservative majority rejected the abortion providers’ request because of the law’s enforcement mechanism, which separates it from “heartbeat” laws passed in other states. The law deputizes private citizens, granting them standing to file lawsuits against violating abortion providers rather than authorizing state agents to police them. The court dismissed the request, which names every state court judge and clerk as defendants, based on procedural grounds.

“It is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention,” the ruling went on to say. “The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.”

The court was also careful not to suggest it had made a decision on the constitutionality of the law.

“In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts,” the opinion continues.

The law also gives citizens in Texas the opportunity to sue abortion providers and those who “aid and abet” the illegal procedures for a financial rewards if the lawsuit is successful.

“Usually a lawsuit aiming to block such a law as unconstitutional names state officials as defendants. Instead, the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win,” The New York Times said.