The US Supreme Court in the struggle for the right to abortion has declared lawsuits from abortion clinics against the controversial, highly restrictive legislation of the state of Texas to be admissible.
Eight of the nine judges in the conservative court spoke out on Friday that such complaints should be heard in a federal court.
The extensive ban on abortion in the southern state therefore remains in force for the time being.
The strictest abortion law in the United States came into effect on September 1 in conservative Texas. It prohibits abortions from the point at which the fetus's heartbeat can be determined, i.e. from about the sixth week of pregnancy. Many women do not even know at this point that they are pregnant. Even in the case of rape or incest, the law does not provide for any exceptions.
Critics of the law had hoped the Supreme Court could overturn the law altogether after a majority of constitutional judges let it through in early November that they consider the "heartbeat law" to be inadmissible.
Strict abortion laws in other states had previously repeatedly failed because they violated the basic judgment “Roe v.
Wade ”of the Supreme Court.
In 1973 the Supreme Court enshrined the right of women to an abortion and confirmed this in a further landmark judgment in 1992.
As a guideline, abortions are generally allowed until the fetus is viable outside the womb.
This is the case after about 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Texas law differs from other restrictive abortion laws in that it tries to keep state agencies out of enforcing the ban. Instead, private individuals are to sue people who they suspect of helping women with an abortion after the sixth week. The Texan authorities would then not be involved, according to the calculation of the draftsmen of the law.
Abortion clinics and their employees in particular face convictions and severe penalties in Texas.
However, you can now turn to the federal courts to stop the law from applying.
Supreme Court chief John Roberts and three Liberal judges added in a separate text to Friday's ruling that they hoped the law would be swiftly blocked "given its dire and far-reaching implications."