Texas Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Abortion Ban Challenge, by Tierin-Rose Mandelburg

Why We Go, by Regis Martin
June 1, 2024
Drunk on Temptation? The Book of Proverbs Can Help, by Dr. Jeff Mirus
June 1, 2024

Building of the Supreme Court of Texas. Public domain. I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

By Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, MRC TV, May 31, 2024

The Texas Supreme Court unanimously decided on Friday to reject a legal challenge that aimed to make abortion more widely available in the state.

Presently, Texas law doesn’t allow a woman to abort her child based solely on the child having an abnormal fetal diagnosis. A group of 20 pro-abort women claimed in March 2023 that the Texas law was too narrow and sued the state. The case, Zurawski v. Texas, argued that the state’s abortion ban prohibited the 20 women from getting medical care for their “complicated pregnancies,” as reports indicate.

Back in August of 2023, a “Travis County judge issued a temporary injunction that allowed Texans with complicated pregnancies to get an abortion if their doctor made a ‘good faith judgment’ that it was necessary.” Friday’s ruling got rid of that injunction in order to protect life, all life, regardless of the ability or function of an unborn baby.

“Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the court wrote in the order signed by Justice Jane Bland. “The law permits a physician to intervene to address a woman’s life-threatening physical condition before death or serious physical impairment are imminent.”

But these women weren’t advocating for that. They were advocating for the “right” to kill their babies in utero in the case the child wasn’t “perfect” according to their standards.

The decision included the following:

‘Reasonable medical judgment,’ we held, ‘does not mean that every doctor would reach the same conclusion.’ Rather, in an enforcement action under the Human Life Protection Act, the burden is the State’s to prove that no reasonable physician would have concluded that the mother had a life-threatening physical condition that placed her at risk of death or of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion was performed.

MRC Bulldog Awards 300x250

The case was facilitated by a woman named Amanda Zurawski who was denied an abortion as her 18-week-old daughter, Willow, had a beating heart in utero. Zurawski, who was marked as a hero at President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, did not receive an abortion from doctors in the state and ended up going into sepsis. But, as the Texas Supreme Court ruling indicated, “Ms. Zurawski’s agonizing wait to be ill “enough” for induction, her development of sepsis, and her permanent physical injury are not the results the law commands.”

Texas law allows abortions when a mother’s life is in imminent danger or puts her fertility at potential risk. It doesn’t allow babies to be killed willy-nilly when they have devastating fetal diagnosis like Trisomy 13, Down syndrome, cleft lip or dwarfism, all of which are not fatal and some individuals have lived long, rather healthy lives with one or more of these complications.

Related: NBC Nightly News Cheers for Dems Filibustering for Missouri Abortion ‘Rights’

In response to the verdict, pro-life groups and individuals celebrated.

The Texas Values X account called it a “victory!”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America agreed. Here’s her statement in full:

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that Texas law is clear in protecting the life of unborn children and their mothers. Under the state’s pro-life protections, and all pro-life laws, doctors can provide pregnant women who experience an emergency with the proper care. We know doctors by-and-large understand they can rely on their reasonable medical judgment based on data showing abortions under the state’s ‘life of the mother’ exception have continued post-Dobbs; and we are grateful the Texas Medical Board is taking steps to educate doctors and the public.

What happened to Amanda Zurawski was completely wrong. No woman should suffer and almost lose her life when the law is clear that doctors can—and should—intervene to prevent further harm. Doctors and hospitals that refuse to provide women with lifesaving treatment are not abiding by their Hippocratic oath and they should be held accountable.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are putting lives in danger by spreading misinformation on pregnant women’s ability to receive emergency care. The abortion lobby has created confusion on this fact to give the Democrats cover for their extremely unpopular all-trimester abortion agenda. Despite this very clear decision from the Texas Supreme Court, Biden and Harris will continue to capitalize on tragedy and spread lies at the expense of women’s lives.

Dannenfelser is right. So many women are being misled about these laws that truly just aim to save lives. Kudos to the Texas Supreme Court for realizing that and deciding in favor of life!

Continue reading >>>>>>>>>