Simon: So abortion would probably apply to medical personnel, but also, who else? The success of the Texas Heartbeat Act dealt a severe blow to Roe v. Wade, because it provided a plan for states to ban abortion while protecting their laws from effective judicial review.  This allowed the states, Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions that had declared abortion a constitutionally protected right.   It has also prompted other states to copy the SB 8 enforcement mechanism and immunize their restrictive abortion laws from judicial review. On May 25, 2022, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 4327, banning abortion from the moment of fertilization.  Because HB 4237, like the Texas Heartbeat Act, is enforced exclusively by civil lawsuits filed by individuals, abortion providers have not been able to stop the law in court and have stopped performing abortions in Oklahoma, even though the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade came into effect when the law came into effect.   Idaho also enacted a six-week abortion ban inspired by the Texas Heartbeat Act, which prevented abortion providers from challenging the constitutionality of the law in federal court. There are also legal questions about how these laws align with other state abortion laws. Pre-Roe regulations, which date back to Texas` first penal code in 1857, provide for two to five years in prison, compared to five years in prison in the prohibition of triggering. 3. Harris LH. Navigating the loss of abortion services – a major academic medical center is preparing for the fall of Roe v. Wade. N Engl J med 2022;386:2061-2064. The passage of Article 2 prompted Texas officials to threaten abortion funds and their donors with criminal prosecution under the state`s abortion laws before Roe.   On March 18, 2022, Representative Briscoe Cain sent cease and desist letters to all Texas abortion funds, asking them to immediately stop paying for elective abortions performed in Texas.  Cain warned that these abortion funds violated the state`s unrepealed pre-Roe abortion laws by “providing the means to induce an abortion with full knowledge of the intended purpose,” and that each of its employees, volunteers, and donors could be prosecuted for violating pre-Roe state laws.  Cain noted that neither Roe v. Wade or any other Supreme Court decision has never created or recognized a constitutional right to pay for another person`s abortion, and that Roe only protects abortion providers and their patients from prosecution under Roe State`s criminal abortion prohibitions. Abortion funds in Texas have refused to stop operations in response to Cain`s letter, and Cain has promised to introduce legislation that will ensure that Texas abortion funds and their donors are prosecuted for any abortion they supported in violation of the state`s abortion laws before Roe.  In late April 2022, the Connecticut General Assembly passed House Bill 5414, the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, which allows anyone prosecuting under Texas law or other similar persons for performing or facilitating an abortion that has occurred, at least in part, in Connecticut, to file counterclaims in that State for the corresponding amount of damages. plus attorneys` fees. It also prohibits the Governor of Connecticut from extraditing a Connecticut resident to another state for performing a legal abortion in Connecticut, prohibits state courts from issuing subpoenas or orders in connection with such enforcement in another state, and prohibits any state or law enforcement agency of Connecticut from cooperating with such investigations.  Simon: Could these laws make abortion murder? Interview with Dr. Lauren Thaxton on the negative impact of the new abortion law in Texas on patients, doctors and trainees. (11:17) Download SEPPER: This is a law that criminalizes the provision of abortion. It carries a five-year life sentence, as well as $100,000 in civil penalties for abortion and administrative penalties in the form of mandatory revocation of a licence to practice medicine, nursing, pharmacy, etc.
On March 11, 2021, the Texas Heartbeat Bill (Senate Bill 8 or SB 8 for short) was introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes.   A companion bill (HB 1515) was introduced a day later by Representative Shelby Slawson in the Texas House of Representatives.  Unlike HB 1500, SB 8 and HB 1515 contained a new enforcement mechanism designed to protect the law from judicial review prior to enforcement. Each of the bills explicitly prohibited state officials from enforcing the law in any way, and instead allowed individuals to sue those who perform or support abortions after cardiac activity was found to be at $10,000 per abortion, plus attorneys` fees and costs. By structuring the law in this way, the authors sought to protect it from judicial review by federal courts, since actions challenging the constitutionality of a state law must be brought against state agents enforcing the impugned law, not against the state itself.  And without a state official to enforce the law, there is no one abortion providers can prosecute before enforcement; Instead, they must wait to be sued by an individual in state court and assert their constitutional rights as a defense against liability in these private civil enforcement proceedings.  This enforcement mechanism is very similar to the laws of the private attorney general`s office.