Biden's DOJ tries again at Supreme Court to block Texas heartbeat law



The Biden administration's Department of Justice said Friday it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block Texas from enforcing its fetal heartbeat law while it continues to fight the law in court.

"The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the Fifth Circuit's stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8," DOJ spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement emailed to reporters.

The announcement follows a decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule a lower court injunction blocking Texas' ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the point at which an unborn baby develops a heartbeat, except in the case of a medical emergency. Thanks to the 5th Circuit's decision, the law will remain in effect for now, permitting ordinary citizens to take abortion providers suspected of violating the law to court.

The heartbeat law has garnered significant controversy, with the Biden administration and pro-choice activists arguing it unconstitutionally infringes on a woman's right to seek an abortion.

In what was hailed by pro-life activists as a monumental victory, even if temporary, the Supreme Court last month refused to grant an emergency request to block the Texas law from taking effect in a 5-4 decision. President Joe Biden called the court's decision "an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade."

Opponents have criticized the law's enforcement mechanism, which allows private individuals to sue abortion providers, abortionists, or anyone who helps a woman access abortion services after six weeks of pregnancy. Biden said that permitting private citizens to enforce the abortion ban with lawsuits "unleashes unconstitutional chaos and empowers self-anointed enforcers to have devastating impacts."

But the unique design of the Texas heartbeat law is precisely what has made it so difficult to challenge in court.

"This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear," Attorney General Merrick Garland said when the Department of Justice sued Texas in September. "If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents."

The Biden administration argued in its lawsuit "it is settled constitutional law that 'a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.'"

Biden's challenge to the Texas heartbeat law is not the only significant abortion case that will come before the Supreme Court. In December, the court will hear another case over a Mississippi abortion restriction that directly challenges the premise of the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which established a constitutional right to an abortion.

Portland backs off boycott threat over Texas pro-life heartbeat law



After grabbing national headlines for threatening to boycott Texas over the state's new pro-life heartbeat law, the city of Portland, Oregon is backing off, somewhat.

In the first week of September, Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) said the city council would vote on a proposal to ban the "future procurement of goods and services from, and City employee business travel to, the state of Texas." Wheeler characterized the proposed boycott as a statement of support for the right to abortion that would remain in effect "until the state of Texas withdraws its unconstitutional ban on abortion or until it is overturned in court."

But by the time the Portland city council voted on Wednesday, the proposal changed significantly, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. The city dropped the boycott on business with Texas and the ban on employee travel to the state. City officials were reportedly unable to figure out how the boycott would work in practice and some pro-choice advocates argued against punishing Texas contractors for the actions of the state government. Meanwhile, the editorial board of The Oregonian blasted the city council for "pointless preening" since the Portland City Council "has exactly zero authority, power or influence over Texas, the new law or the Supreme Court."

Instead, the city created a $200,000 fund for abortion care in Oregon, apparently to aid any Texas residents that travel for an abortion.

"While I still believe that our plan would have been an appropriate and strong course of action to take, over the Labor Day weekend, we heard from other service providers and groups who represent women's rights. They disagreed with some elements," said Wheeler on Wednesday. "As a white man, I recognize the importance of listening and being guided by those who do the work and live the work on the ground."

The revised proposal was supported by the Northwest Abortion Access Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, and Planned Parenthood.

The city council passed the ordinance 4-1, with the lone "no" vote, Commissioner Mingus Mapps, characterizing the "symbolic pushback" against Texas as a waste of taxpayer money.

"I understand and sympathize with the instincts behind this. However, spending $200,000 of Portland taxpayer dollars to pay for reproductive care for people who live in Texas is bad policy," said Mapps. "Here's why: that action does nothing to change or challenge Texas' anti-abortion law."

He told OPB that the city's proposal is bad government.

"This is not good government - the lack of thoughtfulness, the fact that we didn't check in with interest groups before we crafted the proposal, the fact that the proposal got amended in a way that ignores the core problems," Mapps said. "None of this is behavior that we hope to see in local government."

Woke Texas-based dating app companies Bumble and Match create funds to pay for abortions



Two Texas-based dating app companies have created funds to pay for abortions for women seeking to end the life of their unborn children after the Supreme Court declined to block the state's pro-life fetal heartbeat law.

The Texas law, Senate Bill 8, went into effect on Tuesday after the high court declined to take emergency action to block it. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court justices voted 5-4 to allow the law to remain in effect. The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the time at which an unborn child has developed a heartbeat.

Abortion advocates opposing the law complain that most women might not even know they're pregnant at six weeks. They say Texas has effectively banned abortions within the state and done so unconstitutionally, based on Roe v. Wade's precedent.

In response to the court's decision, the Austin-based company Bumble announced on social media it would create a "relief fund" to help women and "people across the gender spectrum' seek abortions in the state.

"Bumble is women-founded and women-led, and from day one we've stood up for the most vulnerable. We'll keep fighting against regressive laws like #SB8," the company said.

Bumble is women-founded and women-led, and from day one we’ve stood up for the most vulnerable. We'll keep fighting… https://t.co/zp0K8KJlhq

— Bumble (@bumble) 1630535500.0

The CEO of Dallas-based company Match Group Inc. is also creating a fund to pay for employees to seek abortions. An internal memo from CEO Shar Dubey, first reported by Bloomberg, informs employees that while Match "generally does not take political stands unless it is relevant to our business ... this particular law is so regressive to the cause of women's rights that I felt compelled to speak publicly about my personal views."

Match Group Inc. owns some of the most popular dating apps and websites, including Tinder and OKCupid.

Dubey said she "immigrated to America from India over 25 years ago and I have to say, as a Texas resident, I am shocked that I now live in a state where women's reproductive laws are more regressive than most of the world, including India."

She told employees that the fund, which she's creating out of her own pocket, will help cover the costs for employees and dependents that want to seek abortions outside of Texas.

According to some estimates, Texas' heartbeat law will prohibit about 85% of abortions that were legal before it went into effect. The law has a unique enforcement mechanism, relying on private citizens to use civil lawsuits to bring anyone helping to procure an illegal abortion procedure into court for up to $10,000.

Pro-abortion activists and abortion providers sue to block Texas heartbeat law



Pro-abortion activists and abortion providers filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Texas Tuesday in an attempt to block a pro-life law that bans abortions after a preborn baby's heartbeat can be detected and allows citizens to enforce the law with lawsuits.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights group, partnered with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and various abortion providers, including Whole Women's Health, as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks to block the Texas heartbeat law from taking effect on Sept. 1.

"If this oppressive law takes effect, it will decimate abortion access in Texas–and that's exactly what it is designed to do," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "The state has put a bounty on the head of any person or entity who so much as gives a patient money for an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, before most people know they are pregnant. Worse, it will intimidate loved ones from providing support for fear of being sued. And this is happening to Texans as we are fighting another direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court, out of Mississippi. We will pursue every legal avenue we can to block this and other pernicious laws."

Texas' heartbeat law requires abortionists to check for a baby's heartbeat and makes it illegal to kill that baby if a heartbeat can be heard. The enforcement mechanism of the law is unique — it empowers "any person," with exceptions for sexual abusers, to sue anyone who "aids or abets" an illegal abortion for up to $10,000 per defendant.

The language of the law means that organizations that provide support to women seeking an abortion, not just direct abortion providers, could be the target of citizen lawsuits by pro-life activists.

"This radical law will isolate people seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortion care by targeting their entire support network and discouraging their loved ones from providing help and support for fear of being sued," said Marc Hearron, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This is just the latest attempt by Texas politicians to ban abortion, but this time they've gone to a new extreme."

Abortion rights groups say the overwhelming volume of lawsuits they could receive under the law would prevent them from providing their services and could potentially cause them to shut down.

The lawsuit against Texas claims the heartbeat law violates a woman's supposed constitutional right to kill her preborn child. It also alleges that the law's enforcement mechanism is designed to make it difficult for courts to stop. Texas has "created an enforcement scheme of private lawsuits brought by the general public in an attempt to evade all legal accountability and prevent the federal courts from blocking this unconstitutional ban before it takes effect," the Center for Reproductive Rights said.

"Approximately 85-90% of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy, meaning this law would prohibit nearly all abortions in the state," the organization noted. It also claims that "people living on a low income and people of color will be harmed the most by this ban" because only women with enough means to travel out of state will be able to seek abortions.