The Washington Supreme Court spent three hours studying the new Texas abortion law.

In other words, the nine judges did not actually deal with the question of whether the so-called Heartbeat Act, which came into force two months ago and usually prohibits abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy, is unconstitutional.

The hearing on Monday was more about the question of whether the new law can be challenged before the federal judiciary.

The legislature, the Republican majority in the Austin Parliament, drafted the standard with the clear aim of avoiding federal review.

A majority of the judges in the hearing appeared inclined to allow abortion clinics to take legal action in federal courts.

Majid Sattar

Political correspondent for North America based in Washington.

  • Follow I follow

Also, two Conservative Constitutional Judges nominated by former President Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, of whom the Republican is seeking to overturn the “Roe v.

Wade ”suggested that they might come to such a conclusion.

Although the Constitutional Court judges' remarks indicated that they tended to allow clinics to take legal action at the federal level, a majority were more skeptical about whether the Justice Department in Washington could also take action against the law.

In contradiction to “Roe v.

Calf"

When the Supreme Court will decide is open. Before the hearing, a majority of the judges refused to suspend the law pending a decision. In return, they arranged the oral hearing unusually quickly. That could speak for a quick decision. Should the Supreme Court give plaintiffs the opportunity to challenge the law in federal courts, the case would be referred back to a lower court. Then the instance path could be taken again. A decision on the matter by the Supreme Court would therefore take even longer.

The Texas abortion law is undoubtedly in contradiction to “Roe v. Wade, ”the 1973 landmark ruling that prohibits states from prohibiting abortions until the fetus is viable. To prevent federal courts from declaring the law unconstitutional, the Austin legislature has chosen a special construct: the state authorities are not responsible for prosecution, as they could then be sued in federal courts. There are precedents for this. In a kind of circumvention strategy, the law thus provides incentives for private individuals to file civil lawsuits against those who make abortions possible: clinics that carry out abortions, parents who give their daughter the money for treatment costs,and even taxi drivers who drive the pregnant woman to the clinic. The plaintiff is entitled to $ 10,000 if the lawsuit is successful.

Several constitutional judges raised concerns that lawmakers wanted not only to circumvent precedents in abortion judgments, but also to circumvent the principle that states cannot annul US constitutional law. Judge Coney Barrett suggested that the law may prevent abortion clinics from exercising all of their constitutional defense rights, such as preventing Supreme Court precedents. Judge Kavanaugh discussed whether the law was exploiting a loophole and considered closing it through the Supreme Court. The legislature's goal of not being able to challenge the law in federal courts could possibly be undermined by suing members of the judiciary instead of members of the executive,namely, the judges and clerks of state courts themselves.