Federal judge rules some abortion procedures can continue in Texas despite state’s ban
In the latest ruling in the legal saga over whether most abortions can continue in Texas amid the novel coronavirus’ spread, a federal judge ruled Thursday that some procedures may proceed despite Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin issued a temporary restraining order, granting abortion providers’ request to allow medical abortions, that are often induced by ingesting pills, and abortion procedures for patients who would be unable to access services during Abbott’s ban on elective medical procedures due to limits on gestational age.
In Texas, most abortions are banned after 20 weeks — resulting in some patients unable to legally access an abortion by the time Abbott’s executive order expires on April 22. Abbott also has the authority to extend the order.
The ruling comes just two days after a panel of judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans ruled in favor of Texas, overturning Yeakel’s earlier ruling that granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban on most abortions that aren’t essential for a patient’s health.
On March 22, Abbott issued an executive order meant to increase hospital capacity to combat the novel coronavirus’ spread, and directed healthcare providers to postpone surgeries and procedures that aren’t medically necessary to correct a serious medical condition or to preserve the lives of a patient. Attorney General Ken Paxton clarified the next day that abortion providers were not exempt from the order, and said that only abortion procedures essential for the mother’s health would be permitted.
While anti-abortion groups celebrated Paxton’s interpretation, abortion providers quickly followed two days later with a federal lawsuit against Texas officials in an effort to stop the state’s ban.
In Yeakel’s Thursday ruling, he wrote that delaying access to abortion will not conserve hospital resources — as Abbott’s executive order was intended to do.
“Because individuals with ongoing pregnancies require more in-person healthcare, including lab tests and ultrasounds, at each stage of pregnancy than individuals who have previability abortions, delaying access to abortion will not conserve (personal protective equipment),” Yeakel wrote.
What’s more, some Texans have reported traveling outside state lines in order to obtain abortions in the wake of Abbott’s executive order, increasing “an individual’s risk of contracting COVID- 19,” Yeakel wrote.
Delaying access to abortion services would result in financial and emotional costs as well as health risks, and without a temporary restraining order, abortion providers and their patients would “suffer irreparable harm,” Yeakel wrote.
Abortion providers had already canceled hundreds of procedures due to Abbott’s ban.
Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights — one of the plaintiffs in the case — said in a statement Thursday night that the organization is relieved the district court stepped in “to stop Governor Abbott from blocking women from accessing time-sensitive, essential abortion care.”
Paxton said in a statement Thursday night that the second temporary restraining order “demonstrates a lack of respect for the rule of law,” and vowed to appeal the decision.
“Just two days ago, the Fifth Circuit dissolved the district court’s previous restraining order because it failed to apply settled law to the facts. We will once again ask the Fifth Circuit to uphold Governor Abbott’s decision to stop all elective medical procedures during the COVID-19 crisis,” Paxton said.
Dyana Limon-Mercado, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, said in a statement Thursday night that while the ruling paves the way for some Texans to seek abortion procedures, that Abbott and Paxton “are exploiting a global health crisis to further their extremist political agenda to block virtually all abortion access.”
“Meanwhile, women’s lives and well-being hang in the balance. Texas often leads the way when it comes to restricting people’s rights to reproductive health care, and this is no more apparent than right now as communities struggle to deal with the hardships of COVID-19 and face increased burdens to access essential, time-sensitive health care,” Limon-Mercado said.
Other states that have passed similar restrictions on elective medical procedures have run into the same question. Officials in states like Washington and Massachusetts clarified that under their orders abortions can continue as planned, while states like Ohio and Alabama ran into legal challenges in regards to their bans.
This story was originally published April 9, 2020 at 7:32 PM.
