In a per curiam decision of December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the request for certiorari as imprudently granted.  Even when the courts declared SB 8 unconstitutional, abortion providers have remained compliant with the law because it purports to subject individuals to civil measures deprived of execution if they perform or support an abortion after a heartbeat, while an injunction blocking the application of the law is in effect if that order is later overturned or overturned on appeal.    On October 6, 2021, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Pitman issued an injunction preventing the State of Texas from enforcing the law, which remained in effect in the United States. The Fifth District Court of Appeals stayed Pitman`s order two days later.  Yet Pitman`s order was unable to fully restore access to cardiac abortions in Texas, even during the 48-hour window it was in effect, because abortion providers were unwilling to risk the civil liability that would be imposed if Pitman`s injunction was stayed or overturned by a higher court.   The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the suspension of Pitman`s sentence by the Fifth Circuit, so that all post-heartbeat abortions performed based on Pitman`s order would be subject to private civil measures under the terms of SB 8.  This has made it difficult for abortion providers to resume their services, even if they receive relief from a lower court declaring the law unconstitutional, and it has further thwarted efforts to thwart law enforcement in the courts. Finally, Section 3 allows for civil lawsuits in the plaintiff`s home district, raising the possibility that anyone who violates SB 8 or supports a violation of SB 8 could be forced to defend themselves in any of Texas` 254 counties, including deep red counties where judges and jurors are likely to deal with anti-abortion.
  This is due to the new enforcement mechanism for the six-week ban. The law allows individuals — from anywhere in the country — to file civil lawsuits against anyone who helps a pregnant person request an abortion in violation of the law. Is abortion safe? Yes, abortion is an extremely safe and common procedure. At the current rate, about one in four Americans capable of reproducing had an abortion before the age of 45. Abortions take place without major complications in more than 99.975% of cases. This means that an abortion is about as safe as a colonoscopy. Where in Texas can I have an abortion? Due to regulations such as those enacted under House Bill 2 in 2013, the number of abortion providers in Texas has dropped significantly. The following cities have one or more abortion providers: Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston, McAllen, Waco, and San Antonio. For a full list of abortion providers in Texas, see: www.needabortion.org. What happens if I don`t have my parents` or guardians` consent to an abortion? A minor under the age of 18 may have an abortion without the consent of her parents or guardians by filing a request for judicial circumvention. Judicial circumvention is the authorization of a judge to perform an abortion without the consent of your parents or guardian.
The process is completely confidential. If the judge determines that you are mature enough to decide for yourself, or that it would not be in your best interests or could lead to abuse, the judge will give you a court order that you can present to your doctor. If you think you need a judicial bypass, there are lawyers who can help you. Jane`s Due Process helps minors circumvent the courts, including legal representation. She can be reached by phone at 1-866-999-5263 or online at janesdueprocess.org. On 2 October, protests erupted across the country. They were named Women`s March in 2021.  If federal courts eventually authorize this law, it is very likely that other conservative states will pass similar laws.
Seago, of Texas Right to Life, said his organization is working with activists in several states willing to replicate this model if it succeeds in blocking access to most abortions in Texas. Anti-abortion rights groups have lobbied for the Texas law, hoping it will be harder for federal courts to strike it down. Instead of requiring officials to enforce the law, the law allows individuals to file civil lawsuits against abortion providers or others who “support or promote” illegal abortions. On September 4, 2021, The Satanic Temple, a self-proclaimed non-theistic religious and human rights group, filed a letter of complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, claiming that the law violated members` constitutional rights to freedom of religion, referring specifically to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Do I have to see the same doctor for all visits? Yes. Texas law requires that the doctor who performs your ultrasound be the same doctor who performs your abortion. The state also requires you to make follow-up appointments with the same doctor. This means that you cannot get your ultrasound from a doctor and then go to another doctor for the actual procedure. It prohibits abortion as soon as cardiac activity is detectable. That`s about six weeks before many people know they`re pregnant.
Other states have tried, but these laws have been challenged by abortion rights groups and repeatedly blocked by federal courts. 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 only 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, despite the Supreme Court Roe v.