Originally published in Lifesite News
The Biden administration launched a federal lawsuit Thursday against Texas over its recently-enacted law that has effectively halted abortions past six weeks in the state, claiming it violates both federal law and longstanding judicial precedent.
- Advertisement -
On September 1, the Texas Heartbeat Act took effect in the Lone Star State. Signed in May by Republican Gov Greg Abbott, the law requires abortionists to screen for a preborn baby’s heartbeat and prohibits abortion if a heartbeat can be heard (generally as early as six weeks), with exceptions only for medical emergencies.
- Advertisement -
Instead of having the state prosecute violators, the law “exclusively” empowers private citizens to bring civil suits against abortionists, punishable by a minimum of $10,000 (R141474) in statutory relief per abortion plus whatever additional injunctive relief is deemed “sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter.”
This unique enforcement mechanism has been credited for the US Supreme Court’s surprising decision not to block the law from taking effect, as well as the decisions of abortion chains Planned Parenthood and Whole Woman’s Health to temporarily suspend abortions past six weeks in the state.
- Advertisement -
On Thursday, however, Forbes reports that US Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the administration’s lawsuit against the Act, making good on Democrat President Joe Biden’s threat to undertake a “whole-of-government effort” to restore abortion-on-demand in Texas.
“The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights,” Garland declared, claiming the Act’s “scheme” is “one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear.”
In addition to conflicting with the pro-abortion precedents of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the lawsuit argues that the law “conflicts with federal law by undercutting federal agencies’ authority and preventing from carrying out certain responsibilities, as well as leaving federal officials open to legal liability,” according to Forbes.
It remains to be seen whether this suit will fare better before the Supreme Court than the abortion-industry challenge it rejected last week, which was based not on the substance of the issue but on the lack of a named enforcer who could be enjoined.
Please help us to keep on publishing news that brings Hope in Jesus:
>> Donate >> Become a Super Subscriber
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/gatewaynews100
COMMENTING GUIDELINES
You are welcome to engage with our articles by making comments [in the Comments area below] that add value to a topic or to engage in thoughtful, constructive discussion with fellow readers. Comments that contain vulgar language will be removed. Hostile, demeaning, disrespectful, propagandistic and off-topic comments may also be moved. This is a Christian website and if you wish to vent against Christian beliefs you have probably come to the wrong place and your comments may be removed. Ongoing debates and repetitiveness will not be tolerated. You will also disqualify yourself from commenting if you engage in trolling.
What a wonky world we live in! The right to take away life superceds the right to preserve life. Today SAfm News reported that Mexico is also rejecting the Right to Preserve Life – arguing that an unborn baby does not have any human life at all.
God has said through his prophets that enough is enough. No longer will He tolerate the spilling of innocent blood, sacrificed to the demon Moloch