The National Catholic Register of August 15, 2021 (a publication of EWTN), carries a story about the Texas Fetal Heartbeat Act signed by Gov. Abbott in May. I have previously posted information about this new law, and the reader might like to refer to that for background.

The law will go into effect September 1 and states that a doctor “may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child.” (Except to save the life of the mother) This covers both abortion pills taken at home and surgical abortions in a clinic. Violators of the law would face stiff monetary penalties for each count of violation.

The reader may know that Texas enacted a law in 2011 requiring a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within 24 hours of the procedure (including the taking of the abortion pills). The law requires the physician to display the ultrasound and make the fetal heartbeat (if present) audible to the mother. The new law prohibits the abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected. A fetal heartbeat may be detected as early as 6 weeks by vaginal ultrasound (which would not be done for this purpose) and maybe not until 8 weeks by abdominal ultrasound.

Planned Parenthood has a history of challenging state laws which restrict abortion in any manner, suing the state and often having the law placed on “temporary” hold by a US district judge. However, the Texas law provides that private citizens can bring a legal action against anyone violating the law, and that the State of Texas may not enforce the law. The intent is that the Texas cannot be (successfully) sued for infringement on a “constitutional right” to an abortion (and thus that implementation of the law cannot be restricted by the court) because the State does not in any way enforce any law restricting abortion.

However, Planned Parenthood, along with other abortion providers, (predictably) filed a lawsuit against Texas last week, naming not only government officials, but also some private individuals who they have identified “who are likely the people who would come forward to enforce the law.”

Mike Lee Dickson with Right to Life of East Texas is among those named as defendants. He began a movement for “sanctuary cities of the unborn” in 2019. He has helped municipalities to pass ordinances banning abortion within the city limits. Such an ordinance went into effect in the city of Lubbock in June 2021. That ordinance is enforced by lawsuits brought by private citizens in the same manner as the new Texas heartbeat law.

Planned Parenthood (predictably) sued the city. US District Judge James Hendrix dismissed the case, writing that “the plaintiffs fail to show that any relief provided by this court is likely to redress the injury at issue–citizen suits brought in state court–the court lacks jurisdiction.”

He also cited the 2001 case of Okpalobi v. Foster in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Louisiana law that permits women to sue their abortion providers for 10 years after the procedure. A significant percentage of women have regrets, suffer from depression, drink alcohol to excess, use illegal drugs, and endure other sequelae after abortion. (This is denied by abortion providers, but I document the decisive studies in my book.)

One can see that abortion providers are in a quandary and have to try to bring a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the new Texas Law. However, the nature of the law and the established precedents in federal court make it seem unlikely that such lawsuits will be able to proceed. Planned Parenthood will undoubtedly hope to appeal to the US Supreme Court in (what can be called by any standards) desperation.

However, before that could happen, the Court will rule (probably in June 2022) in the case of the Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks gestation. At issue is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states that the individual states may make laws regarding issues which are not specifically delegated to the United States (eg Congress) by the constitution. Mississippi asserts the right to regulate abortion according to the values of the people in the state. Depending on how the Court rules, the numerous laws “temporarily” on hold by US District Courts throughout the US will be permitted to become law or will be vacated. This is the most important case of its kind in 50 years. (Please see my earlier posts on this case.)

Supporting the new Texas law are Students for Life, both men and women who are seen in a picture accompanying the article. They hold signs reading “I am the Pro-life Generation” and “The Future is Anti-Abortion.” Their web site is: https://studentsforlife.org/ One has to be impressed by such a well-organized group of young adults who are solidly dedicated to respect for life.

At the same time as individual municipalities and states are increasingly pro-life, let us remember that the real battle is for the hearts and minds of the women with an unwanted pregnancy who finds herself in a desperate and untenable situation. The Pro-Abortion group sees abortion as the only option that they want women to know about. The Pro-Life faction wants every woman to know what resources are available to remedy the worst situation and help her have a healthy baby, even if she must give it up for adoption.

Surgical abortion is on the way out (one way or another), but use of abortion by pills is increasing. Please read this column for updates.