Texas Abortion Laws Reinstated in Full Amid Ongoing Legal Battle

The Texas attorney general’s office has launched an appeal after a district judge issued a temporary injunction to suspend various conditional bans on abortion in the state under.

A pro-life activist holds a plastic fetus in a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, on June 23, 2022. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

The Texas attorney general’s office has appealed a state district judge’s temporary injunction on Aug. 4 that suspended various conditional bans on abortion in the state.

Texas operates under a legal framework within which an appeal instantly freezes the decision in question.

By this action, the attorney general’s office effectively temporarily reinstated the abortion bans in their entirety, awaiting the Texas Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal. The appeal also puts a hold on other aspects of the judge’s ruling.

“While a district judge’s ruling attempted to block the state’s enforcement of Texas pro-life laws, this filing stays the ruling pending a decision by the Texas Supreme Court,” the state attorney general’s office said in a statement.

“Texas pro-life laws are in full effect. This judge’s ruling is not.”

Ruling in Favor of Women Denied Abortions

Travis County District Court Judge Jessica Mangrum had ruled in favor of plaintiffs on Aug. 4 in a case that took issue with the wording in Texas’s abortion laws.

The case, Zurawski v. State of Texas, was initiated in March by the Center for Reproductive Rights, acting on behalf of a group of women and two physicians. Their aim was for the court to define what circumstances would qualify for medical exemptions under the abortion law. An additional eight women joined the lawsuit in May, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 13.

These women had all been denied abortions, even though they'd been warned that their pregnancies could put their health and safety at risk, their attorneys argued (pdf). They and their lawyers contended that the refusals were due to “medical professionals throughout the state [fearing] liability under Texas’s abortion bans.”

The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, was “forced to wait until she was septic to receive [an abortion], causing one of her fallopian tubes to become permanently closed,” according to the complaint filed in March.

In a statement on Aug. 4, the Center for Reproductive Rights said that the language in the Texas abortion laws before Judge Mangrum’s ruling had “resulted in pervasive fear and confusion among doctors as to when they can help patients with severe pregnancy complications.”

Abortion Laws Clearly Define Exemptions, State Argues

But the state insists its abortion laws clearly define medical exemptions and protects mothers and babies. It previously argued in the lawsuit that dissatisfaction with medical care—not the laws—triggered the lawsuit, and that the issue lies with the women’s doctors, not Texas’s abortion restrictions.

Jasmine, 23, waits to receive an abortion at a Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic in West Palm Beach, Fla., on July 14, 2022. Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images

In an Aug. 5 statement, the office announced, “Protecting the health of mothers and babies is of paramount importance to the people of Texas, a moral principle enshrined in the law which states that an abortion may be performed under limited circumstances, such as in the event of ‘a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy’ that places the pregnant woman ‘at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.’”

It adds: “The [Office of the Attorney General] will continue to enforce the laws duly enacted by the Texas Legislature and uphold the values of the people of Texas by doing everything in its power to protect mothers and babies.”

‘Emergent Medical Conditions’

In contrast, the Center for Reproductive Rights asserted on Aug. 4 that Judge Mangrum’s ruling provided “clarity to doctors as to when they can provide abortions and allows them to use their own medical judgment.”

The ruling barred the enforcement of abortion bans when there were “emergent medical conditions,” a term the judge elaborated on in her decision.

The term denoted a range of situations, such as any physical medical condition that posed a risk of infection, made continuing a pregnancy unsafe, is made worse by pregnancy, can’t be effectively treated during pregnancy, or required recurrent invasive intervention.

It also included any fetal condition making the unborn child unlikely to survive the pregnancy and live after birth.

Furthermore, Judge Mangrum declared it legal to perform abortions that would “prevent or alleviate a risk of death or risk to [a pregnant woman’s] health (including their fertility).”

Separately, the judge also found that the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), is “unconstitutional” under the Texas Constitution’s Article I, Sec. 13.

The law, which bans abortions after detecting a heartbeat without exceptions for incest or rape, uniquely allows private citizens to sue anyone who they allege assisted in violating the law. The judge didn’t elaborate further.