Abortion has been a huge issue around the world, most especially in Texas as more people calling out these inhumane practices and should be stopped immediately.

Finally, it was stopped after Texas implemented its new abortion law, called the “Heartbeat Act,” which will prohibit abortions once a cardiac activity is detected in the baby that is usually around in six weeks of pregnancy, and with that act, abortion from Texas have shrunk to a staggering 60% compared to its previous month.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission confirmed that 2,197 abortions were performed in Texas in September while 5,404 abortions had been performed in August. That is a huge leap in numbers and simply indicates how effective the legislation is.

Legiscan further explained, “The Heartbeat Act is when a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined … whether the woman’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.” The Act defines a fetal heartbeat as “a cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.” The Act defines the gestational sac as “the structure comprising the extraembryonic membranes that envelop the unborn child and that is typically visible by ultrasound after the fourth week of pregnancy.”

September 1 was very iconic as the Supreme Court ruled that Texas law could go into effect.

Court Stated, “The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunction, an applicant must carry the burden of making a “strong showing” that it is “likely to succeed on the merits,” that it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” that the balance of the equities favors it, and that a stay is consistent with the public interest. The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents a complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”

It was so soon when .S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction blocking the law at the request of the Biden administration’s Justice Department, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Texas’ request to lift the injunction where Judges James C. Ho, Catharina Haynes have agreed but Judge Carl E. Stewart, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, disagreed.

That was the moment where Attorney General Merrick Garland, A Biden mirror had harshly attacked the Texas law and said, “The Act is unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent. The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights.”

I am still glad that the act is still on the books.

Sources: Daily Wire, Legiscan, Supreme Court

About The Author

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.