A Texas judge has placed a temporary injunction on some of the state’s abortion restrictions, ruling that physicians shouldn’t be barred from providing abortion services in medical emergencies.
Just hours after that ruling, however, the state attorney general’s office filed an appeal stating that the restrictions will remain in place, pending the state Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.
State District Judge Jessica Mangrum of Travis County issued her ruling on Friday in favor of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the state who said that policies barring abortion services were too restrictive. The plaintiffs included physicians and their patients, who shared harrowing details with the court about their experiences resulting from Texas’s abortion ban.
- Amanda Zurawski, who developed sepsis after being denied abortion care when her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy, well before what is considered the time of viability for a fetus;
- Ashley Brandt, who had to travel out of state to get an abortion after one of the twins she was carrying was diagnosed with a fatal condition;
- And Samantha Casiano, who described to the court how she was forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term, giving birth to a child who died just four hours after being born.
Casiano became physically ill recollecting her ordeal on the witness stand last week, crying and vomiting as she described what she went through as a result of Texas’s draconian abortion laws.
The lawsuit from these individuals and their physicians is believed to be the first one filed by people who were personally impacted by a state’s abortion ban since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights protections last year.
Mangrum found the law to be unconstitutional, saying that the vagueness of its language rendered doctors unable to provide necessary abortion services. In addition to allowing more leeway for abortion providers in emergencies, Mangrum also ruled that her injunction would cover those who have a condition that is “exacerbated by pregnancy” that cannot be treated while they are pregnant, and that it would apply in instances in which the fetus has a condition that makes survival after birth highly unlikely.
“The Court finds that there is uncertainty regarding whether the medical exception to Texas’s abortion bans…permits a physician to provide abortion care where, in the physician’s good faith judgment and in consultation with the pregnant person, a pregnant person has a physical emergent medical condition,” Mangrum wrote in her ruling.
“Enforcement of Texas’s abortion bans as applied to a pregnant person with an emergent medical condition for whom an abortion would prevent or alleviate a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility) would be inconsistent with the rights afforded to pregnant people,” Mangrum added.
Mangrum said her injunction would last until spring of next year, when the formal trial would begin. However, right after her injunction was issued, the office of state Attorney General Ken Paxton said that it was filing an “accelerated interlocutory appeal” to the state Supreme Court to immediately block her findings.
“Texas pro-life laws are in full effect. This judge’s ruling is not,” a statement from the attorney general’s office said.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, rejected that messaging.
“It’s never been clearer that the term ‘pro-life’ is a complete misnomer,” said Molly Duane, an attorney for the abortion rights organization. “What our plaintiffs went through was pure torture, and the state is hell bent on making sure that kind of suffering continues.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have until midnight tonight to add 153 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.