Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, April 18, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

From a ‘sanctuary city for the unborn’ to a statewide abortion ban

Abortion rights advocates in the Lone Star State watched this year as a West Texas city criminalized the procedure — and now a more extreme version of that law has gone into effect statewide.

AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — Sherrill wanted to have another child. She and her then-husband picked out baby clothes. They even settled on a name.

Then, at a routine ultrasound appointment, doctors gave the Austin mother bad news. The fetus had a rare heart condition. Even if he survived birth and open-heart surgery, he would likely face “a lifetime of health care challenges,” Sherrill said.

It was 2016, and Sherrill was 18 weeks pregnant. Under Texas law at the time, she couldn’t have an abortion past the 20th week.

“I had around a day or two to think about what would be best,” said Sherrill, who asked not to use her last name out of concerns for privacy and safety. She decided to to abort. “It was absolutely one of the most horrible decisions I’ve ever been faced with, and I’ve been through a lot of in my life.”

Texas lawmakers have long worked to limit abortion access in the Lone Star State. Now, a new state law has nearly completely banned the procedure statewide.

The law, Senate Bill 8, prevents women from getting abortions past the first signs of embryonic “cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks. Since menstrual cycles can last for up to seven weeks, the law criminalizes abortions before some women even know they’re pregnant.

On its face, SB 8 would appear to be a clear violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which prevents government officials from outlawing abortions during the first trimester. But so far at least, the bill has largely avoided scrutiny in the courts by outsourcing enforcement to private citizens.

Rather than threatening abortion providers with arrests, the bill deputizes Texans to sue abortion providers for damages in civil court. Those plaintiffs do not have to have a connection to the patient, can sue from anywhere in the state and are shielded from having to pay court fees if they lose. They can also sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion, an ill-defined category of people that could include anyone from family members to therapists.

Critics say the bill encourages vigilantism and undermines the rule of law by treating everyday Texans as enforcers. In April, when the Texas Legislature was considering the bill, almost 400 lawyers sent a letter to state lawmakers, warning it would “subvert the foundations of our judicial system” by allowing people to bring lawsuits even if they had no injuries.

An Austin judge last week granted a temporary restraining order against one group, Texas Right to Life, that was already soliciting anonymous tips on potential violators. On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas, arguing the law is an “unconstitutional attack” on women's healthcare. But in the meantime, the law’s unorthodox enforcement mechanisms have succeeded in effectively banning abortions. In a 5-4 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency stay against the order, saying it was “unclear” whether any Texans would sue to enforce the unconstitutional new rules.

Regardless, the new law has already sent waves of fear through women’s health care providers in Texas. Three out of four abortion providers in San Antonio have stopped providing the procedure altogether out of fear of being sued, The Texas Tribune reported.

Sarah Wheat, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, says Planned Parenthood is complying with the “extreme ban.” In total, she estimates the bill has stopped around 90% of abortions in Texas. Counselors are also no longer able to frankly discuss abortion options with women — though attorneys for the group have stressed that the bill does not impact conversations about out-of-state procedures.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Unfortunately, this is not the first law that mandates our staff are complicit in providing inaccurate information to people,” Wheat said. And as with previous attempts to curtail abortion, she says low-income women will be the most affected.

“We’re in a pandemic, and now the governor is forcing [patients] to leave the state” for an abortion, Wheat said. “The individuals this will impact the most are the patients who have the least access to resources.”

Texas has been down this road before. In a vote this year that saw just 19% turnout, residents in the conservative West Texas city of Lubbock voted to make it a “sanctuary city for the unborn” by enacting a near-complete ban on abortion.

Like the new statewide law, Lubbock’s ordinance allowed private citizens to sue providers or anyone else who aids or abets an abortion — though in that case at least, the plaintiffs had to be family members of the patient. Conservative City Council members came out against the ban, warning it would drag the city into costly legal battles. But in a move that foreshadowed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this month, a federal judge threw out a legal challenge from Planned Parenthood, ruling the organization did not have standing to sue Lubbock because the city wouldn't be enforcing the law.

Kate Peaslee, a Planned Parenthood volunteer in Lubbock, helped organize voters against the ordinance. Planned Parenthood has also held events since the ordinance passed, she says, in an effort to let Lubbockites know “we're still here” and “still open."

After Lubbock’s ordinance passed, Planned Parenthood’s lines were “flooded with calls from presumably the anti-abortion side,” Peaslee said. She figures anti-abortion activists hoping to collect statutory damages in court were “checking to see what people would say at the call centers.”

Downtown Lubbock, Texas. (Redraiderengineer/Wikipedia Commons via Courthouse News)

Peaslee sees Texas’ new law as a natural outcome of Lubbock’s ordinance. In both cases, she says, the goal is to “sow confusion” among women and advocates.

“For us here locally, it’s been déjà vu in the worst possible way,” she said. “Someone who’s just trying to take care of themselves doesn’t know what’s safe, what’s legal, or what they can do.”

Lubbock’s ordinance and the new state law have other similarities, too. For both pieces of legislation, anti-abortion policymakers were advised by Jonathan Mitchell, a conservative operative and law professor who apparently invented the idea of outsourcing enforcement to private citizens as a way to avoid scrutiny.

Mitchell advises Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn, a group that encourages cities across the country to pass resolutions banning abortion. Thirty-seven cities have so far signed on, but Lubbock was the first with an actual abortion provider. Now, those rules have been adopted across a state of almost 30 million.

This enforcement loophole has caught the attention of legal scholars. Richard Rosen, a constitutional law professor at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, spoke on a panel about Lubbock’s ordinance in April. At the time, he said, everyone on the panel agreed the ordinance was clearly unconstitutional, an affront to legal precedents like Roe v. Wade.

Now, as Lubbock’s ordinance remains in effect and Texas has adopted similar rules statewide, Rosen isn’t so sure how legal battles over the law will play out. He hopes local judges will “do the right thing” and throw out any lawsuits against abortion providers or so-called abettors. But in places like Lubbock, where judges are elected by conservative voters, he says that’s far from a guarantee.

“It’s a clever law,” Rosen says of Texas’s new restrictions. “I don’t like it. I don’t like circumventing a constitutional right like this.”

Aurora Farthing is less optimistic. A native Lubbockite and longtime Republican activist, she’s since split with the party over its stance on women's issues. Earlier this year, she helped rally concerned residents against the city’s ordinance.

Farthing says Texas’s near-total abortion ban will make it harder for victims — including victims of human-trafficking — to get away from their abusers. When Lubbock's rules were adopted statewide, “I literally burst into tears."

Farthing plans to move to Austin, which is now under the same strict abortion rules as Lubbock but where she at least figures strangers won't accost her on the street. “I was born and raised in Lubbock, but I can’t live here anymore,” she said, her voice breaking. “It’s so oppressive, and I’m so tired. I can only be told so many times that I’m going to hell.”

Even before the new abortion rules, it was already hard to be a Texas woman, said Tricia Earl, a Lubbock-based artist and activist.

In Lubbock, women already relied on a whisper networks for everything from advice on reproductive health care to STD tests. Sometimes, women just wanted help finding a doctor would would “listen to them and not shame them for their choices.”

Going forward, Earl predicts desperate women will be further pushed into the shadows. “We were already in this state of mind,” she said. “There’s still stigma in this community.”

Now, in addition to stigma, activists have to worry about the threat of lawsuits. Earl wonders what would happen “if someone knows I helped someone.”

Wheat, the Planned Parenthood spokesperson, sees Texas’ new law as the latest attempt by state lawmakers to regulate women’s bodies. Contrary to what male lawmakers might believe, she says most women who get abortions have already had at least one child.

“They don’t understand, and that’s why we have these very patronizing mandates,” Wheat said. "We absolutely understand what pregnancy is, because we’ve already been pregnant.”

Sherrill, the Texas mother, agrees. The state has a long history of adopting onerous abortion rules, many of which have later been struck by courts. There was the law in 2013 requiring clinics to follow strict code requirements, as well as another in 2017 that required patients to bury fetal remains.

“I think it’s shameful,” Sherrill says of those efforts. “It’s not pro-life.”

She thinks back to that ultrasound appointment. If Texas' new abortion law was already in effect, it would have added more “financial and emotional strain” during what was already one of the hardest times in her life.

“I would have gone to another state,” Sherrill said. Still, she acknowledges that “a lot of other women wouldn’t have had that option."

And for anti-abortion lawmakers in Texas, that's a win.

Follow Stephen Paulsen on Twitter

Follow @stephentpaulsen
Categories / Civil Rights, Government, Health, Law, Regional

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...