Justice Department Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate District Court's Injunction Against Texas Abortion Law

In United States v. Texas, the Justice Department today filed in the Supreme Court an Application (full text) to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay of a preliminary injunction that had been granted by a Texas federal district court. The application on the Court's Shadow docket was filed with Justice Alito who is assigned to take emergency filings from the 5th Circuit. At issue is the Justice Department's challenge to the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. The Justice Department adds that the Court may treat this as a petition for a grant of certiorari before judgment. The Application says in part:

The question now is whether Texas’s nullification of this Court’s precedents should be allowed to continue while the courts consider the United States’ suit. As the district court recognized, it should not: The United States is likely to succeed on the merits because S.B. 8 is clearly unconstitutional and because the United States has authority to seek equitable relief to protect its sovereign interests -- including its interest in the supremacy of federal law and the availability of the mechanisms for judicial review that Congress and this Court have long deemed essential to protect constitutional rights.... 

Again, the Fifth Circuit disputed none of this. Instead, the divided panel’s one-paragraph order stayed the preliminary injunction solely for “the reasons stated in” two decisions addressing a prior challenge to S.B. 8.... But those reasons do not apply to this very different suit. Sovereign immunity forced the private plaintiffs in Whole Woman’s Health to sue individual state officers, and this Court and the Fifth Circuit questioned whether those officers were proper defendants. This suit does not raise those questions because it was brought against the State of Texas itself, and the State has no immunity from suits by the United States. The Fifth Circuit ignored that distinction, which refutes the court’s only justification for the stay.

Justice Alito ordered Texas to file a response by noon on Thursday.  Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia filed a joint amicus brief (full text) in support of the Justice Department.

CNN reports on these developments.

5th Circuit Reinstates Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban While Appeal Is Pending

By a 2-1 vote tonight, in United States v. State of Texas, (5th Cir., Oct. 14, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a one-page Order allowed Texas' restrictive "heartbeat" abortion law to go back into effect while an expedited appeal of the district court's decision enjoining it is heard.

Suit Uniquely Brings Together Issues of Abortion and Vaccines

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently enacted SB 742 which creates a 30-foot floating buffer zone to prevent harassment or interference with any person who is entering or exiting a vaccination site. The buffer zone applies to anyone within 100 feet from the vaccination site entrance. The complaint (full text) in Right To Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, filed 10/13/2021), raises the challenge in a unique factual context. Right to Life is an organization that attempts to dissuade women from having abortions and which provides support to pregnant women and those who have had abortions. Its Outreach Center is located next door to a Planned Parenthood clinic and its staff regularly approaches women who are entering Planned Parenthood. The new law prevents this-- even when outreach staff is on its own property-- because the contiguous Planned Parenthood Center offers HPV vaccine. The complaint alleges that the new law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Connecticut Regulation Of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed this week in a Connecticut federal district court challenging a Connecticut Public Act 21-17 that prohibits deceptive advertising practices by limited services pregnancy centers which are facilities that do not provide or refer for abortions or emergency contraception. The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Support Center, Inc. v. Tong, (D CT, filed 10/12/2021), alleges that the law violates plaintiff's free speech, expressive association, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights. It contends in part:

The Act ... is informed by hostility toward pregnancy services centers’ religious beliefs and pro-life viewpoint, and it targets pregnancy service centers’ disfavored religious beliefs for punishment.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today On State AG's Intervention To Defend Abortion Law [UPDATED]

Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision (full text of decision) refused to allow the state attorney general to intervene to defend the constitutionality of a Kentucky statute which banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. The AG sought to intervene after the 6th Circuit held the statute unconstitutional and no state official would seek a rehearing or an appeal. The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the question of whether intervention should have been allowed. SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's arguments. The arguments will be streamed live on C-SPAN at 10:00 a.m. EST. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case. When a transcript and recordings of the arguments become available, I will update this post with links to them.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments. CNBC reports extensively on the oral arguments in an article titled Supreme Court signals it will side with Kentucky attorney general in bid to defend restrictive abortion law.

5th Circuit Issues Narrow Stay Of Injunction Against Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Law

As has been widely reported (CNN), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals early today in United States v. State of Texas, (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2021) temporarily lifted the Texas federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of Texas S.B. 8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. An appeal was filed by Texas and by three intervenors who planned to sue under the new law. In its motion (full text) filed yesterday, Texas said:

The State respectfully requests an emergency stay pending appeal ...  and an administrative stay as soon as possible to prevent it from being held in contempt for the actions of third parties it cannot and does not control.

In its motion, Texas argued in part:

[S]tate court clerks are now enjoined from “accepting,” “docketing,” or “maintaining” any S.B. 8 case, ... but “[t]he longstanding rule in Texas is that an instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is left with the clerk, regardless of whether or not” a clerk adds “a file mark.”... Thus, an S.B. 8 suit “is ‘filed’ when it is tendered to the clerk,” regardless of the clerk’s actions.... Once such a suit is filed, clerks can be accused of “accepting,” “docketing,” and “maintaining” it, especially given the district court’s failure to define the terms it used. Put simply, there is no way for the State to ensure compliance with this injunction and avoid contempt proceedings.

In its decision today, the 5th Circuit apparently focused on this narrow concern. Its order provides:

IT IS ORDERED that Intervenors’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal is temporarily held in abeyance pending further order by this motions panel. Appellee is directed to respond to the emergency motion by 5 pm on Tuesday, October 12, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED that Intervenors’ motion for a temporary administrative stay pending the court’s consideration of the emergency motion is GRANTED.

Police Officer Who Prayed Outside Abortion Clinic Sues Over Suspension From Duty

An officer in the Louisville, Kentucky police department this week filed suit in a Kentucky federal district court seeking damages for the Department's four-month suspension of him. The suspension was in effect during an extended investigation of the officer's praying outside an abortion clinic while in uniform, but before he went on duty for the day. He was ultimately cleared of any violation of rules.  The complaint (full text) in Schrenger v. Shields, (WD KY, filed 10/4/2021) alleges violations of the 1st and 14th amendments as well as of Title VII, and state civil rights laws. It also alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. WDRB News, reporting on the lawsuit, says:

EMW staff said the officer intimidated patients and medical staff while wearing his uniform and gun.

Surveillance video from the clinic showed Schrenger in a marked police cruiser. He marched outside of the clinic for approximately 45 minutes, at one point holding a sign that read "pray to end abortion."

Federal District Court Enjoins Texas' Controversial "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

In United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, Oct. 6, 2021), a Texas federal district court in a 113-page decision, preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Texas S.B. 8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to prevent the Texas law from going into effect while its constitutionality was being litigated. Today's decision comes in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In it, the court explores at length the standing and redressability issues that have been seen as impediments to courts' reviewing the law that effectively bans almost all abortions after six weeks of gestation.  The court said in part:

A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established. With full knowledge that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme whereby it created a private cause of action in which private citizens with no personal interest in or connection to a person seeking an abortion would be able to interfere with that right using the state’s judicial system, judges, and court officials.....

This Court finds that S.B. 8 concretely injures the United States by prohibiting federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their obligations to provide abortion-related services and subjecting federal employees and contractors to civil liability for aiding and abetting the performance of an abortion....

The next question is whether the United States suffers an injury-in-fact such that it has standing to challenge a potential violation of Constitutional rights that not only impacts federal agencies, but the public at large.... The United States has standing to file suit in parens patriae for probable violations of its citizens’ Constitutional rights.... [W]hen, as here, a state appears to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a scheme designed to evade federal judicial review, the United States possesses sovereign interest in preventing such a harm. This interest is sufficient to establish a particularized injury....

... [I]n the alternative, ... the concepts underpinning In Re Debs and its progeny likewise establish a particularized injury to sovereign interests of the United States.... Debs supports standing where the government’s interest is preventing harms to “the general welfare” and the “public at large."... 

However, this Court notes that were Debs’s progeny to be read narrowly to support standing only in cases involving interstate commerce, the United States has likewise demonstrated an interest sufficient to establish standing..... By extending liability to persons anywhere in the country, S.B. 8’s structure all but ensures that it will implicate commerce across state lines.... In addition to imposing liability on those coming into Texas, the law has also already had the effect of pushing individuals seeking abortions into other states.... This stream of individuals across state lines burdens clinics in nearby states and impedes pregnant individuals in surrounding states from accessing abortions due to backlogs.....

[T]he State’s scheme to disguise its enforcement role and disclaim accountability collapses upon cursory inspection. The State enacted S.B. 8 and created a private enforcement scheme that clothes private individuals with the State’s enforcement power.... That delegation alone would have been sufficient to show state action. The practical operation of an S.B. 8 lawsuit in Texas courts deepens the State’s enforcement role.... [T]he State plays a role at every step of an S.B. 8’s lifecycle in Texas courts. A private cause of action enforcement scheme is meaningless without state action.... An injunction properly runs against the State....

... [T]he State has intentionally crafted a statute to employ private citizens as its proxy. Put simply, the State’s participation in enforcing S.B. 8 lawsuits amounts to actionable state action....

... [P]rivate individuals enforcing S.B. 8 are properly regarded as state actors.... The private individuals who bring S.B. 8 lawsuits are [also] in active concert with the State to enforce S.B. 8....

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Texas, including its officers, officials, agents, employees, and any other persons or entities acting on its behalf, are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.201–.212, including accepting or docketing, maintaining, hearing, resolving, awarding damages in, enforcing judgments in, enforcing any administrative penalties in, and administering any lawsuit brought pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code §§171.201–.212. For clarity, this Court preliminarily enjoins state court judges and state court clerks who have the power to enforce or administer Texas Health and Safety Code §§171.201– .212.

As set out above, this Court has the authority to enjoin the private individuals who act on behalf of the State or act in active concert with the State.... However, the Court need not craft an injunction that runs to the future actions of private individuals per se, but, given the scope of the injunctions discussed here and supported by law, those private individuals’ actions are proscribed to the extent their attempts to bring a civil action ... would necessitate state action that is now prohibited.

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Texas must publish this preliminary injunction on all of its public-facing court websites with a visible, easy-to-understand instruction to the public that S.B. 8 lawsuits will not be accepted by Texas courts.....

CNN reports on today's decision and notes that quickly after the decision, Texas filed a notice of appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Trial Court Bars Some, Allows Other Oklahoma Abortion Restrictions

An Oklahoma state trial court judge yesterday, in a ruling from the bench in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. O'Connor, (OK Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2021) (full text of complaint), issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of some of Oklahoma's new abortion restrictions, but denying a TRO as to other provisions. According to a press release from Center for Reproductive Rights:

The laws blocked by today’s ruling include: a total abortion ban declaring that providing abortion at any stage in pregnancy qualifies as “unprofessional conduct” by physicians; and a law banning abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. The state conceded that these laws are unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

However the court refused to enjoin provisions that would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB/GYNs; and various restrictions on medication abortions, including an admitting privilege requirement and and ultrasound requirement.

HHS Reverses Trump Administration Rules For Family Planning Grantees

The Department of Health and Human Services yesterday revoked the Trump Administration rules that prohibit family planning clinics receiving Title X funds from making referrals for abortions and which require strict physical and financial separation between abortion services and services funded by Title X monies. The HHS 124-page rule release (full text) titled Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services reinstates pre-2019 requirements, saying in part:

In addition to readopting the requirements as they existed prior to the 2019 rule, the 2021 rule also includes several revisions that will strengthen the Title X program and ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family planning services for all clients, especially for low-income clients, while retaining the longstanding prohibition on directly promoting or performing abortion that follows from Section 1008’s text and subsequent appropriations enactments.

The new rules require that grantees offer the opportunity for clients to receive non-directive counseling on the range of options available-- pre-natal care and delivery; infant care, foster care or adoption; and pregnancy termination. However "objecting individuals and grantees will not be required to counsel or refer for abortions in the Title X program in accordance with applicable federal law."

The new rules become effective on Nov. 6. AP reports on the new rules. Planned Parenthood issued a press release regarding the new rules.

Cert. Denied In COVID, Chaplaincy and Abortion Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its lengthy (66-page) first-day-of-the-Term Order List denying review in several hundred cases. It includes the denial of certiorari in the following:

Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills (Docket No. 20-1346): In the case, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal challenging the Maine governor's COVID Orders limiting attendance at faith-based events. (See prior posting.)

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel v. Department of Navy (Docket No. 20-1794): A case in litigation for over 20 years involving allegations by non-liturgical Protestant chaplains of discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood (Docket No. 21-3): A challenge to Missouri  HB 126 imposing Down Syndrome and Gestational Age limits on abortions. The Supreme Court noted: "After this petition was filed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit withdrew the panel opinion from which the petition sought certiorari. Accordingly, given the absence of any opinion for our review at this time, the petition is denied  without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by either party following the Eighth Circuit’s final disposition of the case."

Court Enjoins Arizona's Ban On Abortions Because Of Fetal Abnormalities

 In Isaacson v. Brnovich, (D AZ, Sept. 28, 2021), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of provisions in an Arizona law that prohibit medical personnel from performing an abortion knowing that the reason the abortion is sought is solely because of a genetic abnormality of the fetus.  It also bans knowingly soliciting or accepting money to finance an abortion because of a genetic abnormality of the child.  The court concluded that the law "does not offer workable guidance about which fetal conditions" are covered by the law, and is unclear about when a doctor or others will be deemed to know or believe what is in the mind of a patient.  The court concluded in part:

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that the Reason Regulations are unconstitutionally vague and unduly burden the rights of women to terminate pre-viability pregnancies.

The court refused to enjoin another portion of the law that broadly calls for interpreting other state laws to cover rights of the unborn. Axios and AP report on the decision.

British Court Says Fetus Has No Rights Under European Convention On Human Rights

In The Queen (on the Application of Crowter) v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, (EWHC, Sept. 23, 2021), a 2-judge High Court panel in Britain rejected an attack on provisions in the Abortion Act 1967 that permit late-term abortions where "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped...." This has been interpreted to include Down syndrome fetuses. The court rejected claims that this provision violates various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

the European Court has never decided that a foetus, even one post-viability, is the bearer of Convention rights.... To the contrary, it has been content to leave the controversial and difficult issue of when life begins to the margin of appreciation of Contracting States. The fact that both domestic legislation and courts, and the European Court itself, have recognised that there may be circumstances in which the foetus has interests which the State is entitled to protect does not lead to the proposition that it enjoys rights under Article 2.

The court also issued a press summary of the case. Law & Religion UK also reports on the decision.

San Marino Voters Approve Legalizing First Trimester and Certain Other Abortions

In a referendum yesterday, citizens of the tiny, predominately Catholic European nation of San Marino approved legalization of abortion.  According to AP:

Some 77% of voters approved a referendum proposal calling for abortion to be legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.... Abortion would also be legal beyond that point if the woman’s life is in danger or if her physical or psychological health is at risk because of fetal anomalies or malformations.

With the “yes” votes winning, San Marino’s Parliament must now draft a bill to legalize the procedure. Turnout for the referendum was 41% in the microstate of 33,000 people surrounded by Italy.

DOJ Seeks TRO To Prevent Suits Under Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Bill

After filing suit last week in a Texas federal district court to prevent the state of Texas from enforcing SB 8, Texas' "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages, the Department of Justice yesterday filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The motion and memorandum of law (full text) in United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, filed 9/14/2021), contends in part:

[T]he Court could enjoin any person who files suit under S.B. 8 from prosecuting his or her claim. Here, an injunction against Texas can run to the individuals who file civil enforcement actions because, at a minimum, those individuals would qualify as “persons who are in active concert or participation with” the State. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C). The purpose of Rule 65 is to prevent defendants from creating schemes to evade judicial review and enforcement by ensuring that injunctive relief “not only binds the parties defendants but also those identified with them in interest, in ‘privity’ with them, represented by them or subject to their control.”

New York Times reports on the filing.

Federal Court Clears Way For Telemedicine Medication Abortions On Guam

In Raidoo v. Camacho, (D GU, Sept. 3, 2021), a Guam federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that permits Guam-licensed physicians who reside in Hawaii to remotely supply medication abortions to women on Guam through teleconference consultations with the medication delivered by mail.  According to the court:

In 2018, the last abortion physician on Guam retired, and no local doctor has stepped in to fill the vacancy....  While Plaintiffs claim there are physicians on Guam willing to provide pre- and post-abortion care, none are willing to provide abortion services directly, as “[a]nti-abortion stigma discourages even supportive local doctors from incorporating abortion services into their practice.”

The legal impediment to the proposed procedure are provisions in the Guam Public Health Code §3218.1 that require certain information to be given to the woman "in person" and "individually and in a private room." The court said in part:

Here, Defendants fail to rebut Plaintiffs’ argument that the in-person requirement serves no benefit to a legitimate state interest.... Defendants failed to offer any evidence that supports their position that in-person communication is superior to live, face-to-face video conference.

KUAM News reports on the decision. The Archbishop of Agaña, head of the Catholic Church in Guam, reacted to the decision.

Oklahoma Governor Signs 9 Bills Supported By Pro-Life Movement

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, in a press release last week, announced his ceremonial signing of nine new laws supported by the pro-life movement, which were summarized as follows:

• SB 918 restores Oklahoma’s prohibition on abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned....
• HB 1102 adds the performance of an abortion under state statutes for “unprofessional conduct,” with exceptions for the life or significant physical impairment of the mother....
• HB 1904 requires abortionists to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology....
• HB 2441 prohibits abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected....
• SB 778 and SB 779 provide safeguards surrounding the use of abortion-inducing drugs....
• SB 960 protects relinquished children by extending the time frame they can be relinquished to rescuers from 7-30 days. It also, directs the Oklahoma State Department of Health to award grants for the child to be placed into a “Baby Box” where the newborn can be relinquished....
• SB 647 created Lily’s Law ... [which] requires birthing centers and other medical facilities to keep a written policy to allow for the family to direct the disposition of the remains of the child who was stillborn or miscarried....
• SB 584 prohibits fetal trafficking....

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Justice Department Sues Texas To Block Enforcement Of "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit in a Texas federal district court to prevent the state of Texas from enforcing SB 8, Texas' "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. The complaint (full text) in United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, filed 9/9/2021), contends:

Texas enacted S.B. 8 in open defiance of the Constitution.... Because S.B. 8 clearly violates the Constitution, Texas adopted an unprecedented scheme “to insulate the State from responsibility”...  by making the statute harder to challenge in court....

The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review. The federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated.

The complaint contends that state action is present, even though the statute relies on private enforcement:

[W]hile Texas has gone to unprecedented lengths to cloak its attack on constitutionally protected rights behind a nominally private cause of action, it nonetheless has compelled its judicial branch to serve an enforcer’s role. “State action, as that phrase is understood for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, refers to exertions of state power in all forms.” ...

Under the state-action doctrine, private actors also may be found to function as agents or arms of the state itself and thus are bound by the Constitution.

The complaint also alleges a more direct impact on the federal government:

S.B. 8 exposes federal personnel and grantees to liability for carrying out their federal obligations to provide access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies and interferes with federal contracts and grants with third-party providers who are obligated under their agreements to provide abortion-related services but refuse to do so to avoid liability under S.B. 8.

Attorney General Garland also delivered remarks (full text) announcing the lawsuit. Dallas Morning News has additional background and reactions.

South Dakota Governor Restricts Chemical Abortions

According to a press release from the office of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, on Sept. 7 the Governor signed Executive Order 2021-12 that orders state Department of Health to adopt rules to prevent telemedicine abortions and restrict chemical abortions in the state. According to the press release:

The executive order restricts telemedicine abortion in the following ways:

• Declares that abortion drugs may only be prescribed or dispensed by a physician who is licensed in South Dakota after an in-person examination;

• Blocks abortion-inducing drugs from being provided via courier, delivery, telemedicine, or mail service;

• Prevents abortion-inducing drugs from being dispensed or provided in schools or on state grounds; and

• Reiterates that licensed physicians must ensure that Informed Consent laws are properly administered.

The executive order also directs the Department of Health to do the following:

• Develop licensing requirements for “pill only” abortion clinics;

• Collect empirical data on how often chemical abortions are performed as a percentage of all abortions, including how often women experience complications that require a medical follow-up; and

• Enhance reporting requirements on emergency room complications related to chemical abortion.

Mexico's Supreme Court Legalizes Abortion In State Bordering Texas

On Tuesday, Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation held unconstitutional several provisions of the Penal Code of the state of Coahuila that criminalizes abortion.  According to a Court press release (full text in Spanish), the Court unanimously declared Article 196 of the Penal Code of Coahuila unconstitutional.  The section criminalizes voluntarily having an abortion or or causing a woman, with her consent, to have an abortion. The court said the section violates the right of a woman to choose. 

The court also invalidated Article 198 that prohibits health care workers from assisting in an abortion, and Article 199 that limits abortion in the case of rape, artificial insemination or implantation to 12 weeks. Finally the Court invalidated as discriminatory Article 224 that sets a lower penalty for rape between spouses, common-law partners and civil partners than for rape by others.

The decision was unanimous on the part of all 10 Justices. Because the decision was by more than 8 votes, its reasoning is binding on all federal and local judges. 

Reuters reports on the decision, pointing out that the state of Coahuila borders Texas which just effectively banned most abortions. This could make the state a destination for Texas women seeking abortions.