A U.S. appeals court on Thursday refused a petition by the U.S. Department of Justice to put on hold Texas's restrictive abortion law, which bars the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy.
The U.S. Fifth Court of Appeal said the law could stay in effect pending "expedited" further proceedings in the high profile legal challenge.
It also lets ordinary citizens enforce the ban, rewarding them at least $10,000 if they successfully sue anyone who helped provide an abortion after fetal cardiac activity is detected. Critics of the law have said this provision enables people to act as anti-abortion bounty hunters.
France Dernières Nouvelles, France Actualités
Similar News:Vous pouvez également lire des articles d'actualité similaires à celui-ci que nous avons collectés auprès d'autres sources d'information.
Texas Abortion Restrictions Can Continue During Litigation, Appeals Court RulesA federal appeals court has ruled that Texas’s restrictive abortion law can remain in effect as litigation continues with the Justice Department
Lire la suite »
Texas abortion ban upheld by federal appeals courtNEW: The most restrictive abortion law in the country will remain in effect, after a federal appeals court sided with Texas on Thursday in an ongoing legal battle with the Department of Justice.
Lire la suite »
Texas anti-abortion law upheld by federal court, setting up potential SCOTUS caseThe Supreme Court had previously declined to rule on the law's constitutionality, despite the wishes of pro-choice groups.
Lire la suite »
Texas urges appeals court to keep abortion ban in place as legal challenges play outTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton urged a powerful federal appeals court on Thursday to allow a state law that bars abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat to remain in effect while legal challenges play out.
Lire la suite »
Texas tells court that states may reach own conclusions about abortion's constitutionalityTexas tells federal appeals court that it was free to pass its law banning abortion after 6 weeks because states can reach their own conclusions about whether the procedure is constitutional.
Lire la suite »