Abortion | The Supreme Court displays its divisions on Texas law

The nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States posted their divisions Monday during hearings on a Texas law against abortion which has paralyzed clinics offering this type of service for two months.

Marc Thibodeau
Press

Magistrates from the progressive wing, a minority in the country’s highest court, have openly criticized the law, arguing that it has already had a catastrophic effect on access to abortion and risks setting a precedent likely to lead to attacks on other fundamental rights.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor notably argued that issues such as gun control, gay marriage or access to contraception could in turn be concerned if the approach put forward by the Texan authorities is ultimately validated. Other magistrates were rather worried about the scope of the requests of the federal government, which urgently calls for an injunction blocking the application of the law, noting that they are based on an “unlimited and ill-defined authority” likely to contravene the law. distribution of powers existing between the central power and the States.

The magistrates had initially refused two months ago, in a shared decision, to take up a request from a group of pro-choice organizations opposed to the law, allowing at the same time its entry into force.

The decision was strongly denounced by the administration of President Joe Biden, who decried the Texas initiative as a “clearly unconstitutional” attack on the right to abortion as defined in the landmark Roe v. Wade of 1973. The Department of Justice then introduced its own petition.

In October, an Austin federal judge granted a temporary injunction blocking the application of Texas law, but the decision was quickly overturned by an appeals court before the Supreme Court, amid controversy, announced its decision. intention to take up the case.

Several possible pursuits

Texan law, which prevents any abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, provides that any citizen can bring a civil action against those who violate this prohibition, or help to do so, and obtain a substantial sum in the event of victory. .

The lawyer representing pro-choice organizations, Marc Hearron, said on Monday, to substantiate his abusive nature, that the law provides that several prosecutions are possible for a single case and that the applicants do not have to demonstrate personal injury for be able to go to court.

He also criticizes local authorities for making civilians rather than state officials responsible for enforcing the law to complicate any possible legal challenges.

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone told the Supreme Court that these same organizations cannot initiate proceedings to block the law out of hand and must instead wait until a first prosecution for illegal abortion is completed, even though the process is likely to drag on for a long time.

He also lambasted the federal government’s request for an injunction, noting that nothing in the case law allowed him to intervene “preventively” in the case to try to torpedo the Texan initiative.

Newly appointed Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the Texas law posed an “extraordinary danger” to the existing constitutional structure and must be countered.

The work of the Supreme Court, which took the case under advisement, was closely followed Monday by defenders and opponents of the right to abortion.

Several conservative states have already set out to emulate Texas law and could impose similar restrictions if the country’s highest court gives them the opportunity.

In Texas itself, the population remains divided. A recent University of Houston survey indicates that 69% of people think the law is too restrictive.