December, 12 2016, 01:30pm EDT
Center for Reproductive Rights Sues Texas to Stop Latest Unconstitutional Abortion Restrictions
New litigation seeks to protect Texas women from regulations designed to cut off access to legal abortion and shame women. Filing comes less than six months after Center for Reproductive Rights secures landmark U.S. Supreme Court victory against Texas.
TEXAS
Today the Center for Reproductive Rights filed new litigation against the state of Texas over unconstitutional new regulations that mandate the burial or cremation of embryonic and fetal tissue that results from abortions, miscarriages, or ectopic pregnancy surgery - regardless of the woman's personal wishes or beliefs.
The politically-motivated rules are designed to restrict a woman's right to access safe and legal abortion by increasing both the cost of reproductive health care services and the shame and stigma surrounding abortion and pregnancy loss.
The lawsuit demands that the state halt implementation of regulations finalized late last month by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS). The final rules disregard widespread objection from medical organizations, legal experts and others who argue that these unconstitutional new restrictions offer no public health or safety benefit.
The regulations - first proposed just four days after the U.S. Supreme Court's historic Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision in June - are in direct defiance of the high court's ruling, which held that restrictions on legal abortion cannot impose burdens on a woman's right to access abortion care without providing any legitimate, medical benefit.
Said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"These regulations are an insult to Texas women, the rule of law and the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared less than six months ago that medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion access are unconstitutional.
"These insidious regulations are a new low in Texas' long history of denying women the respect that they deserve to make their own decision about their lives and their healthcare.
"The Center for Reproductive Rights will continue to fight for Texas women, and women across the nation, to ensure their rights are protected."
***
Said Amy Hagstrom-Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, lead plaintiff in the case:
"Texas' profound disrespect of women's health and dignity apparently has no bounds with this new regulation announced just days after our June victory in the Supreme Court. This latest attack is an end run game to add restrictions on abortion care and it ignores thousands of Texan's testimony and comments.
"We at Whole Woman's Health have a history of fighting restrictions that are deeply rooted in shaming and stigmatizing Texans and today's filing is no different. We will not stand for Texas putting more undue burdens on women and families who deserve the safe and compassionate abortion care that we provide at Whole Woman's Health."
***
Today's lawsuit was filed by David Brown and Molly Duane of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Austin attorneys Jan Soifer and Patrick O'Connell of the law firm O'Connell & Soifer, and J. Alexander Lawrence of the law firm Morrison & Foerster in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of Whole Woman's Health, Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center, Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Reproductive Services and Dr. Lendol Davis.
The regulations are part of an ongoing attack across the country to restrict access to legal abortion through unnecessary regulations that endanger women's health and safety. State legislators have passed more than 330 new restrictions on abortion access in the last five years alone.
The new litigation comes as Texas faces a $4.5 million legal bill over its defense of the sham clinic shutdown laws struck down by the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
'We Will Organize Those People,' Anti-Poverty Crusader William Barber Says of Millions Set to Lose Medicaid
"They will not kill us and our communities without a fight."
Jul 02, 2025
Armed with 51 caskets and a new federal analysis, faith leaders and people who would be directly impacted by U.S. President Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill got arrested protesting in Washington, D.C. this week and pledged to organize the millions of Americans set to lose their health insurance under the package.
Citing Capitol Police, The Hill reported Monday that "a total of 38 protestors were arrested, including 24 detained at the intersection of First and East Capitol streets northeast and another 14 arrested in the Capitol Rotunda. Those taken into custody were charged with crowding, obstructing, and incommoding."
The "Moral Monday" action was organized because of the "dangerous and deadly cuts" in the budget reconciliation package, which U.S. Senate Republicans—with help from Vice President JD Vance—sent to the House of Representatives Tuesday and which the lower chamber took up for consideration Wednesday.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the megabill would result in an estimated 17 million Americans becoming uninsured over the next decade: 11.8 million due to the Medicaid cuts, 4.2 million people due to expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, and another 1 million due to other policies.
"This is policy violence. This is policy murder," Bishop William Barber said at Monday's action, which began outside the U.S. Supreme Court followed by a march to the Capitol. "That's why we brought these caskets today—because in the first year of this bill, as it is, the estimates are that 51,000 people will die."
"If you know that, and still pass it, that's not a mistake," added Barber, noting that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)—one of three Republican senators who ultimately opposed the bill—had said before the vote that his party was making a mistake on healthcare.
Moral Mondays originated in Tillis' state a dozen years ago, to protest North Carolina Republicans' state-level policymaking, led by Barber, who is not only a bishop but also president of the organization Repairers of the Breach and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.
This past Monday, Barber vowed that if federal lawmakers kick millions of Americans off their healthcare with this megabill, "we will organize those people," according to Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
In partnership with IPS and the Economic Policy Institute, Repairers of the Breach on Monday published The High Moral Stakes of Budget Reconciliation fact sheet, which examines the version of the budget bill previously passed by the House. The document highlights cuts to health coverage, funding for rural hospitals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The fact sheet also points out that while slashing programs for the poor, the bill would give tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, plus billions of dollars to the Pentagon and Trump's mass deportation effort.
"Instead of inflicting policy violence on the most vulnerable, Congress should harness America's abundant wealth to create a moral economy that works for all of us," the publication asserts. "By fairly taxing the wealthy and big corporations, reducing our bloated military budget, and demilitarizing immigration policy, we could free up more than enough public funds to ensure we can all survive and thrive."
"As our country approaches its 250th anniversary," it concludes, "we have no excuse for not investing our national resources in ways that reflect our Constitutional values: to establish justice, domestic tranquility, real security, and the general welfare for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Asylum Crackdown Dealt Major Blow in 'Hugely Important' Court Ruling
"Nothing in the Constitution grants the president the sweeping authority asserted," wrote a U.S. district judge.
Jul 02, 2025
President Donald Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers was dealt a major blow on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the administration had vastly overstepped its legal authority with an executive order issued on the first day of his second term.
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular