OPINION: The Texas abortion ban, why Ohio may follow suit

“Pro-choice protesters march outside the Texas State Capitol in Austin on Sept. 1, 2021” Photo by Sergio Flores

Zach Donaldson is a freshman studying political science and an opinion writer for The New Political.

Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.

What are some of the specific parameters of the Texas abortion law?

The essential idea of the Texas law states that any pregnancy in which a heartbeat can be detected cannot be aborted. This generally occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy, meaning pregnancies that pass this time threshold cannot legally be aborted in Texas. Furthermore, the law makes no exceptions for rape, incest or sexual abuse.

Another key distinction is how the laws’ provisions are enforced. The writing of the Texas law specifically prohibits state officials from enforcing the act and instead allows any resident in the state of Texas to sue abortion providers or those they suspect are “aiding and abetting” abortions after said designated six-week mark. The law awards $10,000 for successful lawsuits, essentially providing a monetary incentive for citizens to police reproductive healthcare.

What legal actions have been taken, and is such a ban constitutional?

To stop the law’s enactment, various abortion providers and other plaintiffs filed suit in federal district courts against four defendants: the state Attorney General, a state judge, a county judicial clerk and Mark Lee Dickinson, a private citizen and pro-life activist. State officials were granted immunity since they had no way of enforcing the act, and Dickinson had yet to file under the act. The federal district judge hearing the case, Robert L. Pitman, denied the defendants the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, but his subsequent denial of their sovereign immunity allowed the case to be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court. In the 5th Circuit, the plaintiffs appealed for emergency relief on the afternoon of Aug. 30 and requested an injunction. Shortly after the Texas law went into effect on Sept. 1, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 majority to deny the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction.

The court’s ruling does not determine the constitutional merits of the heartbeat bill but rather denies the emergency relief for the plaintiffs to allow the law to go into effect. Constitutional challenges to the law can only begin when a private citizen sues an abortion provider, and it will likely take a long time to be fully resolved. Abortion activists have a convincing case to make that the act violated Roe V. Wade given its lack of exemptions and the incredibly short grace period of six weeks. Still, that suit is increasingly uncertain in a 6-3 conservative-tilting Supreme Court.

Could we see a similar ban in Ohio?

Not only could we see a similar ban instituted in Ohio, I would argue it is likely. In 2019, Gov. Mike DeWine signed a very similar heartbeat abortion bill passed by the state legislature, but it was blocked by a federal district court. The stipulation in the Texas law that allows it to pass this legal barrier is its utilization of civil suits. Since state officials cannot enforce the act, any lawsuits against them regarding the constitutionality of the law can be overruled on jurisdictional boundaries. Florida is reportedly already considering a near-identical bill with several state representatives throwing their support behind the Texas law, and it is likely many red-controlled states like Ohio will follow suit.

Would you support a bill similar to the Texas abortion law in Ohio?

I believe the heartbeat abortion law in Texas is cowardly, ineffective and a blatant violation of reproductive rights. I wholeheartedly oppose it.

For starters, unless a woman is actively trying to get pregnant, it is highly unlikely that they will know they are pregnant until after six weeks. This is especially the case with younger women who undergo more irregular menstrual cycles. Clinical symptoms such as fatigue and nausea do not typically start after six weeks, and nearly half of pregnancies in the United States go unplanned, per The New England Journal of Medicine. This means a large sect of women in the state of Texas could be forced to go through with a pregnancy they were not even aware existed.

The law’s lack of exemptions for cases of rape, incest and sexual abuse is even further sickening. The idea that we as a society should expect women to bear their rapist’s child is morally abhorrent. It places punitive measures on them for a situation they have no control over.

Also unique to the Texas law, which is equally detestable, is its enablement of what amounts to reproductive vigilantism. By shifting the responsibility of enforcement from the state government to the citizenry with civil lawsuits, the state population is financially incentivized to inform on providers attempting to provide medical care that has nothing to do with them.

As it stands now, this law would not stop abortion; it simply makes it far more dangerous and challenging to attain. Abortion rights advocates estimate that 85-90% of women needing an abortion in Texas are at least six weeks into their pregnancy, and the majority of citizens would find their nearest clinic resides in the state of Louisiana. For those unable to make the trek, it is not unreasonable to suggest they may resort to illegal abortion as women in other countries often do where abortion is outlawed. Nearly 70,000 women a year die because of unsafe or illegal abortion and countless others sustain serious injuries.

This law is not about protecting the lives of the unborn; it’s what anti-abortion movements have always been about: controlling women’s bodies. Suppose the state of Texas truly wanted to reduce the loss of unborn lives. In that case, it could do so through a variety of other agreeable measures: wider access to contraceptives, birth control and bolstered sex education. 

Abortion is a tragedy, and it undoubtedly should be rarer. However, it is a deeply personal and weighty decision, and that is precisely why it must be safe, legal, accessible and out of the nose of the state government.