Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Ban

  • News
5 min. read

Multiple sources reported on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Center’s case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, which challenges Texas’s abortion ban and vigilante scheme. The Court refused to block the blatantly unconstitutional ban, which has ended more abortion access in the state. It dismissed the most significant part of the Center’s case, which would have allowed abortion providers to sue state judges, clerks, and Attorney General in federal court, but allowed providers to only sue certain state licensing officials. 

Nancy Northup, the Center’s president and CEO, commented on the Court’s ruling to Ms. Magazine, “It’s stunning that the Supreme Court has essentially said that federal courts cannot stop this bounty-hunter scheme enacted to blatantly deny Texans their constitutional right to abortion. The Court has abandoned its duty to ensure that states do not defy its decisions. For 100 days now, this six-week ban has been in effect, and today’s ruling means there is no end in sight.”

Amy Hagstrom Miller, the Center’s client and president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, has seen the devastating impact of S.B. 8 on the ground. She stated g to NBC News, “We’ve had to turn hundreds of patients away since this ban took effect, and there is no end in sight. For nearly 50 years, the Supreme Court has said that abortion is protected by our Constitution, yet they are allowing Texans to be denied that right.” Politico also reported that unless the law is blocked soon, Miller’s clinic may be forced to permanently close its doors.

While The Washington Post called the ruling a “narrow win for abortion providers,” the Center’s senior counsel Marc Hearron noted,  “Make no mistake, while the court allowed our legal challenge to proceed against some state licensing officials, an injunction against those officials will not block Texas’s bounty-hunting scheme.”

Learn more about the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. 

Media coverage of the Supreme Court’s ruling: