A majority of Justices on the Supreme Court have refused to temporarily halt a provision of a Texas abortion law that is expected to prevent a third of the state’s abortion clinics from providing that service. That means the law will immediately go into effect, pending an appeal expected to take place in January.
The law is part of the omnibus abortion bill that Wendy Davis famously filibustered, but was ultimately unable to block in a second special session. The next stop was a federal district court, which said that the provision requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles was unconstitutional and lacked a rational medical basis. It issued a stay blocking immediate enforcement. But the conservative Fifth Circuit lifted that stay, leaving the clinics and groups like Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU little choice but to appeal to the Supreme Court.
All five of the Justices appointed by Republican presidents, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined in the order to let the law go forward; all four of the Justices appointed by Democrats said they would have waited until the court had fully considered its constitutionality.
In a concurrence, Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito stuck to the technical aspects of how and when the highest court can overturn an order from the appeals court. But the dissent, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, pointed out that there was more at stake than just procedure.
“The balance of harms tilts in favor of applicants,” Justice Breyer wrote, meaning the abortion providers and civil liberties groups. The state waiting a little longer to implement the law if it were found constitutional, he said, paled in comparison to “the potential for serious physical or other harm to many women whose exercise of their constitutional right to obtain an abortion would be unduly burdened by the law. And although the injunction will ultimately be reinstated if the law is indeed invalid, the harms to the individual women whose rights it restricts while it remains in effect will be permanent.”









