Liberals are enraged as the pro-life movement wins another major victory.
A federal court has ruled that Texas’ “heartbeat law” can remain in effect despite efforts to block it.
This law protects the life of unborn children once a heartbeat can be detected, which usually occurs around the six-week mark.
Democrats like Hillary Clinton used to claim abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. This is no longer the case as radical leftists seek abortion-on-demand and oppose any pro-life measure.
The U.S. Supreme Court previously allowed the law to remain in effect, but leftists continued to fight the measure as the case went to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democrats have claimed the law violates the Roe v. Wade precedent. A federal judge ruled that law may remain in effect while the state court debates its merits.
This pro-life measure in Texas is causing headaches for liberal activists because it has a unique way of avoiding any violation of the Roe v. Wade precedent.
The law simply authorizes members of the public to sue anyone who performs an abortion in violation of the law.
As a result, abortion doctors could still wrongfully terminate unborn lives with heartbeats, but they would likely face financial ruin due to heavy fines and legal penalties for violating the law.
Some Texans say they will travel hundreds of miles to access abortion care, but hopefully more states will consider this pro-life measure and the importance of protecting the God-given and inalienable rights to life.
Both dissents from the December 10 #SCOTUS ruling had suggested that the Justices believed the district court would be able to act quickly. This decision now keeps the case in limbo — and abortion after 6 weeks in the nation’s second-largest state — a dead-letter, indefinitely. https://t.co/B7yAcWg6Tn
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) January 17, 2022
More from Western Journal:
“This decision now keeps the case in limbo — and abortion after 6 weeks in the nation’s second-largest state — a dead-letter, indefinitely,” wrote Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas School of Law professor.
The decision by the appeals court came with Judges Edith Jones, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, and Kyle Duncan, appointed by former President Donald Trump, supporting sending the law back for review while it remains in effect.
The judges wrote that they believed they were acting in the manner the Supreme Court intended when it sent the Fifth District the case.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama, opposed that ruling.
“This further, second-guessing redundancy, without time limit, deepens my concern that justice delayed is justice denied, here impeding relief ordered by the Supreme Court,” he wrote in a dissent.
The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, attacked the ruling, according to Axios.
Texas officials are employing a “delay tactic” to block abortion providers “from getting back to the district court and obtaining a declaration once and for all that the ban is unconstitutional,” it wrote in a statement from Nancy Northup, the group’s president and CEO.