Anti-abortion groups are fired by the Texas ruling. They are just beginning.

WASHINGTON – Anti-abortion groups feel empowered after U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas law to ban most abortions, an action experts have said could be a “plan” to eliminate abortion rights.

“This is a massive victory for the pro-life movement and we are thrilled that the law can remain in place,” said Rebecca Parma, senior legislative associate at Texas Right to Life.

On Wednesday afternoon, the high court rejected an appeal by abortion rights advocates to block Texas restrictive law banning abortions after detecting fetal cardiac activity as early as six weeks after the abortion. ‘pregnancy. The law also allows anyone in the country to sue abortion providers or others who help women get the procedure after that deadline.

While lawsuits were filed against Texas law, Parma said, “We are optimistic that this law will survive these attacks and that this historic policy will remain in place and continue to save lives.”

Shortly after the sentencing, Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson said Thursday that the legislature would consider enacting a copier of Texas law that effectively bans most abortions.

“It’s something we’re already working on,” he told a local affiliate of the Tampa Bay news channel.

Aside, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem tweeted he has directed the “unborn child advocate” in his office to review Texas law “and current South Dakota laws to make sure we have the strongest pro-life laws in the SD books.”

And in Arkansas, Rose Mimms, executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, said in an email that her organization “will seriously consider how a law like SB 8 could save unborn lives in Arkansas.”

Advocates for abortion rights have said the law is unconstitutional. Earlier Supreme Court rulings made it illegal for states to ban abortion before a fetus is viable, which usually happens around the 24th week of pregnancy.

But SB 8 was designed not to criminalize abortions directly after six weeks, which allowed the law to circumvent that rule. Rather, critics say, it was written to encourage civil lawsuits at the municipal, county and state levels, forcing abortion rights advocates to pay potentially crippling costs to defend themselves regardless of the outcome.

Kristin Ford, acting vice president of communications for the abortion rights group NARAL, said the imitated laws are “deeply troubling.”

“I think there are too many people who took on this Roe [v. Wade] it was an established law and that the right to abortion was safe and it is not, ”he said.

Looking to the future, Mallory Quigley, vice president of communications for Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion organization, said the ruling encouraged her, but now all eyes are on the Mississippi case the Supreme Court will hear. later this year, banning most abortions after 15 weeks.

The case is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the most important decision that established the legal right to abortion nationwide.

Anti-abortion activists in Georgia, South Carolina and Ohio echoed Quigley saying the Mississippi case is the biggest domino to fall and will have a greater effect on abortion law in their states.

Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio in Life, said he sent “countless calls from state representatives and state senators” to Ohio asking if they should try to pass a bill identical to Texas law. He said his advice was to wait for “the big showdown” with the Mississippi case.

“In Ohio, we have an activating bill that we will get to the governor. [Mike] DeWine later this year, “he said, referring to laws designed to immediately ban abortion in the event Roe is shot down.” And the bill says that when Roe is revoked, Ohio will be free of abortion except to save the mother’s life. “

Ohio is one of the states that passed a version of the “heartbeat law,” which makes abortion illegal as soon as the fetal heartbeat can be detected. These laws have been enacted in federal court.

But Gonidakis said that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe altogether in deciding on the Mississippi case, “then we must not limit [a ban to] six weeks: we can start from conception “.

Credit –