Texas Supreme Court Upholds Near-Total Abortion Ban in Unanimous Decision
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling in Zurawski v. Texas (23-0629), rejecting a pro-abortion challenge aimed at expanding the state’s near-total abortion ban beyond its narrow exception for preserving the life of the mother. This ruling, brought by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), solidifies Texas’s strict stance on abortion, emphasizing the legal framework that currently governs such procedures.
The case was brought forward by approximately 20 women who claimed they were denied emergency abortions due to their doctors’ uncertainty about the provisions of Texas’s “Human Life Protection Act.” These plaintiffs argued that the exception in the law was both “confusing” and “unconstitutional,” particularly in cases where broader pregnancy complications arose. The lower trial court had previously issued an order that replaced the law’s life-threatening requirement with allowances for any “unsafe” pregnancy and fatal fetal anomalies. Furthermore, the trial court had modified the standard from “reasonable medical judgment” to a “good faith belief” standard, granting doctors more discretion in performing abortions.
Texas Supreme Court strikes down lower court’s order
However, the Texas Supreme Court struck down the lower court’s order, affirming that the existing law already grants doctors the “legal authority” to perform an abortion in an emergency.
“Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the state High Court declared. “The law permits a physician to intervene to address a woman’s life-threatening physical condition before death or serious physical impairment are imminent.”
Addressing the challengers’ confusion, the Court clarified that any physician advising a pregnant patient that they “may die” or suffer “substantial physical impairment” without an abortion, while simultaneously claiming the law does not permit it, is incorrect. The Court emphasized that a mother does not need to be in “imminent peril” or “first suffer” impairment for doctors to intervene.
The challengers had also contended that Texas abortion law should permit abortions in cases where the unborn child is unlikely to survive outside the womb, even if the mother’s life is not at risk. This argument was flatly rejected by the Court.
Restrictions to emergency abortions
“The current law, however, plainly does not permit abortion based solely on a diagnosis that an unborn child has an abnormal condition, even a life-limiting one,” the Court stated. “An unborn child’s diagnosis must be coupled with reasonable medical judgment that the mother has a life-threatening physical condition…or serious physical impairment.”
The Court also held that the lower court erred in substituting the law’s “reasonable medical judgment” standard with a “good faith belief” standard. The plaintiffs had argued that the subjective nature of “reasonable medical judgment” could lead to discrepancies among doctors, potentially resulting in a “battle of the experts.” The Court, however, maintained that a subjective standard would focus on a doctor’s “intent” rather than “medical facts.” It concluded that “reasonable medical judgment” allows doctors to rely on peer-reviewed best practices for treating their patients.
In its ruling, the Texas Supreme Court underscored the state’s historical commitment to protecting unborn life.
CRR says ruling fails to provide clarity
The Center for Reproductive Rights wasn’t happy with the decision and said it fails to provide the clarity they were looking for. “This ruling utterly fails to provide the clarity Texas doctors need for when they can provide abortion care to patients with serious pregnancy complication without risking being sent to prison. To add insult to injury, the opinion erases the women we represent as though their pain and experiences didn’t exist or matter,” said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Northrup continued, “Pregnancy complications should be managed by doctors, not courts and politicians. We are enormously proud of the women in this case who stood up to Texas’ unjust law. We will continue to pursue every available legal avenue to address the suffering happening in Texas and are currently assessing what, if anything, remains of our clients’ claims in this case.”
Commitment to protecting life
“The history of abortion regulation in Texas demonstrates the Legislature’s unmistakable commitment to protecting the lives of pregnant women experiencing life-threatening complications while also valuing and protecting unborn life,” the Court wrote.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver praised the ruling, stating, “The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution and abortion law protect both a mother and her unborn child. The pro-abortion industry is sowing confusion where the law is clear. Doctors can use their ‘reasonable medical judgment’ based on best practices to treat pregnant women experiencing a life-threatening condition. Texas law is on the side of life.”
Amy O’Donnell, Communications Director for the Texas Alliance for Life, also expressed support, “We are ecstatic that the Texas Supreme Court has allowed legal protections from elective abortions for unborn babies to continue while acknowledging that doctors can perform abortions to save women’s lives,” said Amy O’Donnell, Texas Alliance for Life’s Communications Director. “The law can continue to save babies’ lives and, in rare a tragic cases, save women’s lives, just as the Legislature intended.”
Texas Alliance for Life submitted two amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) briefs in the case. The first brief on behalf of 92 members of the Texas Legislature, made the point that nowhere in the state constitution is there a right to abortion. The second brief on behalf of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, Texans for Life, and Texas Alliance for Life showed how the medical necessity exception in the Human Life Protection Act is clear and that Texas abortion laws have always been found by courts to be clear.
