Federal appeals court upholds Texas law limiting dismemberment abortion procedure

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled in favor of a Texas law limiting dismemberment abortion procedures used in the second trimester, setting up a possible showdown in the Supreme Court.

The law from 2017 has not been enforced, but it prevents aborting a live fetus by dismemberment without first using a suction procedure or injected drug to ensure that it is dead, CBS DFW reported.

Last year, the law was struck down by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court. Texas obtained a rehearing by the full court (minus three judges who were recused), where a majority of 14 appellate judges ruled in favor of the state law.

The judges ruled that banning the procedure — known medically as dilation and evacuation — did not prevent women from getting abortions and that opponents of the bill had created a “false dichotomy.”

“The record shows that doctors can safely perform D&Es and comply with SB8 using methods that are already in widespread use,” the judges added. 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an amicus brief in favor of the Texas law, and cheered Wednesday's decision.

"Texas has the right to respect the life of unborn children, and it did so when it chose to strictly limit the gruesome procedure of dismemberment abortions," Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Elissa Graves said. "The 5th Circuit was on solid ground to reverse the lower court's decision striking down the law, finding that 'the district court committed numerous, reversible legal and factual errors.' What the Texas law, SB 8, forbids is causing an unborn child's death by 'corporal dismemberment,' in which the child dies 'by bleeding to death as his or her body is torn apart.'

"SB 8 prohibits the use of this grisly and unnecessary method before the death of the unborn child. The law is both humane and constitutional. As the 5th Circuit rightly found, the abortionists who filed this lawsuit 'have utterly failed to carry their heavy burden of showing that SB8 imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women in the relevant circumstances."

Abortion rights advocates sharply criticized the ruling as making it harder for poor and minority women to get an abortion.

“In no other area of medicine would politicians consider preventing doctors from using a standard procedure,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman’s Health, which is one of the plaintiffs in the case. “It should never be a crime for doctors to use their best medical judgment and follow the most current science.”