Robert Pitman, U.S. District Judge, blocked S.B. 8 Texas six-week abortion ban. This law sought to avoid judicial review and gave the power to bounty hunters to sue anyone who aids them. Pitman's 113-page opinion is a rebuke of the Supreme Courts one paragraph, back-of the envelope order refusing halt to the law on Sept. 1. It had already been in effect. Pitman, who was present for lengthy oral arguments in the case, explains why federal courts should prohibit Texas's judiciary from accepting anti-abortion vigilante lawsuits. Pitman answers many of the complex and unique questions that SCOTUS did not address last month, when it refused to enjoin the law. Pitman also reveals the ongoing crisis facing Texans in need of abortion care. He shows the harrowing effects of the ban on the five-weeks ago. Although Pitman's decision may be reversed by higher courts, they will not be able to point out a flaws in his fact-based and meticulous opinion.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Texas' law is an explicit attempt at Roe v. Wade. Doctors are prohibited from ending a pregnancy within six weeks. This is when approximately 85 percent of abortions occur. It does not permit state officials to enforce the regulation. Instead, S.B. S.B. 8 permits random individuals to file a $10,000 lawsuit against anyone who aids or abets an abortion. The state judges and clerks of the court who would hear and decide these cases were sued by abortion providers. Pitman was ready to evaluate S.B. 8 on Sept. 1, when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped him from holding a hearing and refused to suspend the law. The Supreme Court refused to stop S.B. 8 with 54 votes, citing novel and complex antecedent procedural issues.
Advertisement
Clinics across the state saw an immediate and dramatic change. Fearing that they would be in violation of the law, many Texas abortion clinics stopped offering services. Several Texans were begging for abortion services, and clinic workers were subject to harassment.
Subscribe to the Slatest Newsletter Get a daily email update with the latest stories. Signing you up was not possible due to an error Please try again. To use this form, please enable jаvascript. Email address: I would like to receive updates on Slate special offers. You agree to our Privacy Policy & Terms by signing up. Thank you for signing up! You can cancel your subscription at any time.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a separate lawsuit on Sept. 9 to dismantle S.B. 8 on federal grounds. The DOJ has a significant advantage. It can sue a state directly because it is representing the United States. Private plaintiffs cannot do this. The Justice Department sued Texas, overcoming the procedural problem that had previously afflicted the plaintiffs. The state of Texas tried to claim that S.B. 8 was deliberately designed to conform to the constitutional rules in Roe and Planned Parenthood, v. Casey. It also discovered that no woman has been prohibited from having an abortion within the past week. 8 had gone into effect. The argument of the states was a tour de force in gaslighting, which flew in the face all the facts reported over the last few weeks.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
In light of mounting evidence that pregnant Texans were materially harmed by the law, the DOJs bet agents of the state would be sued. Pitmans decision is full of strong rhetoric but it is mostly devoted to the novel and complex threshold issues that the Supreme Court was too tired to examine when they let the law stand. It is clear that S.B. There is no doubt that S.B. Pitman stated that the scheme is warranted equitable action by the United States because it effectively blocks private access to federal courts due to the state's machinations.
Advertisement
Pitman stated that the DOJ has cleared these hurdles and had correctly challenged S.B. 8. On the merits, it is clear that Texas law clearly violates Roe. It outlaws abortions long before fetal viability. Pitman created an injunction to stop existing S.B. to block the law. Pitman created an injunction to stop existing S.B. lawsuits and prevent new ones from being filed. He ordered Texas to post the preliminary injunction on its public-facing court website with an easily understood instruction to the public, "S.B. Texas courts will reject 8 lawsuits.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Pitman refused Texas' request for an immediate stay of the decision. He explained that the State has lost its right to such accommodation through an aggressive and unprecedented scheme to deny citizens a well-established constitutional right. This does not mean that Texas clinics will be able to provide constitutionally protected abortions services immediately. Pitman's decision could be overturned and doctors who do abortions in interim can still be sued. At the moment, however, the odds are against the states' half-hearted effort to harm women and avoid judicial review.
Pitman did not focus on the pains of Supreme Court justices who are beleaguered by demands of the shadow docket or Texas which seeks overturn Roe V. Wade without having to bother with precedents or legal arguments. Pitman instead criticized the state for hurting pregnant women who have relied upon the courts to protect their rights, lying about it and trying to circumvent the law of the land, footnote after footnote. Since the date S.B. He wrote that since the S.B. Other courts might find a way around this conclusion, but this Court will not approve of another day of such an offensive deprivation.
Advertisement
Advertisement
It is difficult to predict what Pitman's order from the 5th Circuit will do. This could swiftly halt his injunction. The Supreme Court is where five conservative justices think S.B. is the only way to find out what might happen. Their deceitful design allows them to get away with it. For the first time in more than a month, Texas women became visible and their needs were urgently addressed by a federal court. Although it may not be enough to restore the right to choice, this is the first glimpse at justice since the Texas law was twisted.
