AUSTIN - State lawyers defending stringent new abortion laws in a federal court trial argued Monday that Texas can legally enforce the measures for the purpose of protecting fetal life.
Attorney General Greg Abbott's legal team opened a two-day trial about the constitutionality of a pair of requirements in a sweeping abortion restriction package by arguing the laws were designed with more than women's health in mind.
"The constitution allows the state to protect fetal life in this manner so long as it does not impose an undue burden," state Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell told a packed courtroom.
In the face of mass protests, state lawmakers in July passed some of the toughest abortion laws in the country, including a ban on abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and a mandate that allows for abortions only in surgical facilities.
The measure, House Bill 2, also requires that doctors gain admitting privileges at local hospitals less than 30 miles from where an abortion is performed and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be used. Those two provisions, which are set to go into effect Oct. 29, are being challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union as unconstitutionally burdensome.
Outdated, inefficient
During Monday's hearing, a doctor who performs abortions testified the two measures would harm women across the state.
Dr. Paul Fine, medical director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston, said the standard in the new law for abortion-inducing medications, which would require providers to adhere to a Food and Drug Administration protocol designed in the 1990s, is outdated and inefficient.
Under that protocol, in which additional clinical visits and a higher dosage of the medication are required, Fine testified that clinics would stop offering drug-induced abortions because it's "too complex and labor-intensive."
"It's turning back the clock two decades," Fine said, adding that his Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston would stop offering the pregnancy-ending drugs if the law is enforced.
Monday's remarks were the first salvos in the opening rounds of the legal challenge over the abortion laws - a case that will ultimately be decided by higher courts. The losing side in the trial playing out this week in Austin is all but guaranteed to appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
Written testimony
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel heard testimony from three witnesses, all from the abortion-rights groups. Abbott's legal team will not put witnesses on the stand, making its case exclusively via written testimony.
Still, state lawyers spent hours Monday trying to poke holes in the testimony of the abortion-rights witnesses, questioning their data and the credibility of abortion reports maintained at clinics.
Testimony will continue at 9 a.m. Tuesday and is expected to wrap up by mid-day after the final two witnesses take the stand. Yeakel isn't expected to issue a ruling directly from the bench Tuesday, but lawyers have said he's likely to render an opinion by the morning of Oct. 28 - one day before the laws kick in.
On Monday, Yeakel urged lawyers to speed up the trial by withholding their personal opinions on the issue of abortion and just get to the point: "I want to hear about the statute and whether the statute passes muster or not."
During testimony, witnesses for the advocacy groups also said that the abortion privilege requirements would result in clinic closures across the state, creating a situation where women in West Texas and the Rio Grande Valley would have to drive hundreds of miles to get an abortion.
Anti-abortion bias
Fine, the Planned Parenthood doctor, said hospitals in just about every instance will deny privileges to abortion doctors who don't reside locally. On some occasions, he said, a physician's qualifications won't even be considered because of a built-in anti-abortion bias on the part of hospital committee members who make the final decision.
"They don't have to have a reason why they vote yay or nay on a particular provider," Fine said.
State lawyers brushed off testimony about potential clinic closures as "hearsay anecdotes." Mitchell, the state's solicitor general, said abortion providers challenging the law can't offer solid proof about clinic closures until the law takes effect.
"The plaintiffs want this court to simply assume it will be impossible for every abortion practitioner who lacks admitting privileges to get them," he said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment