(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department has filed suit against the state of Texas to block its restrictive law against abortions, Attorney General Merrick Garland said on Thursday, setting up a high-stakes legal battle after the Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect earlier this month.

“That act is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” Garland said at a news conference. “Those precedents hold, in the words of Planned Parenthood versus Casey, that ‘regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.'”

He accused Texas Republicans of crafting a “statutory scheme” through the law “to nullify the Constitution of the United States.”

“It does not rely on the state’s executive branch to enforce the law, as is the norm in Texas and everywhere else. Rather, the snatcher deputizes all private citizens without any showing a personal connection or injury to serve as bounty hunters authorized to recover at least $10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a woman’s exercise of our constitutional rights,” he said.

As part of its lawsuit, Garland said the DOJ is seeking an immediate court order preventing the enforcement of SB8 in Texas.

Garland also made clear that the department won’t hesitate to take similar legal action against other states who might pursue a similar route to restrict abortions in the state.

“The additional risk here is that other states will follow similar models,” Garland said, and he denied that the decision to file the suit now was in any way based on political pressure from Democrats or the White House.

The lawsuit accuses Texas lawmakers of enacting the law “in open defiance of the Constitution.”

“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 lawsuit says. “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 suit also alleges that the law conflicts with federal law by intending to prohibit federal agencies from carrying out their responsibilities related to abortion services.

“Because S.B. 8 does not contain an exception for cases of rape or incest, its terms purport to prohibit the federal government and its employees and agents from performing, funding, reimbursing, or facilitating abortions in such cases,” the lawsuit says.

Garland cautioned that the Texas law should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics.

“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents,” he said. “Nor one need think hard or long to realize the damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws that empower any private individual to infringe on another’s constitutionally protected rights in this way. The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights.”

The Texas statute, which is the most restrictive abortion law in the country, bars physicians from providing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, or as soon as six weeks into a pregnancy — often before a woman would even know they were pregnant. There is an exception for medical emergencies, but not in cases of rape or incest.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court formally rejected a request by Texas abortion providers to block the state’s severe new law as legal challenges continue.

The unsigned order from the court said the providers had “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” but added “their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that they were unable to resolve.

The new law has triggered outrage from those who support a women’s right to an abortion nationwide. Companies like Uber and Lyft have offered to pay legal fees for any driver who is sued under the law and dating apps Match and Bumble, both headquartered in Texas, pledged to support women seeking abortions.

On the other side, many state lawmakers have said they intend to copy the wording of the Texas law in order to enact similar bans in their states.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has endorsed Harriet Hageman, a primary challenger to incumbent Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., ahead of Hageman’s Thursday afternoon announcement that she will run for Cheney’s seat in the House of Representatives.

His endorsement both strikes back at Cheney, who voted for Trump’s impeachment in January and is serving on the Jan. 6 House select commitee, and is another test of how much weight his backing carries in primary races.

“Unlike RINO [Republican in name only] Liz Cheney, Harriet is all in for America First. Harriet has my Complete and Total Endorsement in replacing the Democrats number one provider of sound bites, Liz Cheney. Make America Great Again!” Trump said in a statement on Thursday morning through his Save America political action committee.

Trump also said that Hageman “is strong on Crime and Borders, powerfully supports the Second Amendment, loves our Military and our Vets, and will fight for Election Integrity and Energy Independence.”

POLITICO reported last month that that Trump and Hageman, who ran for governor in 2018, were going to meet to discuss a congressional bid.

Hageman, an attorney and former national committeewoman for Wyoming on the Republican National Committee, supported Cheney in previous campaigns. But in a statement on her campaign website, she said Cheney had lost her support.

“Like many Wyomingites, I supported Liz Cheney when she ran for Congress. But then she betrayed Wyoming, she betrayed this country, and she betrayed me,” Hageman said. “Every time Wyomingites see President Biden fail us and harm the interests of our nation and our state, they have Liz Cheney to thank.”

Cheney fired back at Trump’s endorsement on Twitter, posting a picture of Trump’s statement with “number one provider of sound bites, Liz Cheney” highlighted in yellow.

“Here’s a sound bite for you: Bring it,” Cheney wrote.

“I am honored to represent the people of Wyoming and proud of my strong conservative record,” Cheney said in a statement to ABC News.

“It is tragic that some in this race have sacrificed those principles, and their duty to the people of Wyoming, out of fear and in favor of loyalty to a former president who deliberately misled the American people about the 2020 election, provoked an attack on the U.S. Capitol, and failed to perform his duties as president as the violence ensued.”

The upcoming Republican primary in Wyoming, which only has one congressional district, will pit Cheney against multiple primary challengers.

Wyofile, a Wyoming-based news service, reported on Wednesday that voters in the state have been receiving illegal robocalls asking about Cheney’s primary challengers. The Wyoming Republican Party has said the calls “are not being generated on behalf of any Wyoming Republican state or county party.”

ABC News’ Meg Cunningham and John Parkinson contributed reporting.
 

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TEXAS) — Just one week after a law took effect in Texas that bans nearly all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the state is close to enacting another restriction on abortion.

A bill that would shorten the time in which a pregnant person could have a medication abortion is now on the desk of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has defended his state’s new law that bans most abortions, including in cases of incest and rape.

The bill awaiting Abbott’s signature, Senate Bill 4, would limit the time window for physicians to offer abortion-inducing medication to seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10 weeks of pregnancy. This would mean that if a person misses the six-week window for a procedure-based abortion, they would have one more additional week to have access to medication abortion.

Access to medication abortion — the use of oral medications mifepristone and misoprostol to end a pregnancy — has become a major focus point since Texas’ controversial law went into effect. The law, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to not block it amid legal challenges, marked a significant moment in the United States’ history of reproductive rights, experts say.

And now, many experts are keeping their eyes on Texas — a state with a long history of debating abortion rights — to see if its actions encourage other states to impose more restrictions on medication abortion with the goal of limiting abortion access overall.

“Texas looms so large when it comes to abortion rights and access and what we’re really seeing is this coordinated strategy of layering bans and restrictions to very nearly ban abortion,” said Elizabeth Nash, interim associate director of state issues at the Guttmacher institute, a reproductive rights organization. “Medication abortion has been a very high priority in state legislatures in 2021.”

In South Dakota this week, Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, issued an executive order directing the state’s Department of Health to establish rules requiring that abortion-inducing drugs only be prescribed and dispensed by a state-licensed physician after an in-person examination. Noem said she also plans to pass legislation next year that makes “these and other protocols permanent.”

Across the country, more than 30 states require clinicians who administer medication abortion to be physicians, while 19 states require the clinician providing a medication abortion to be physically present when the medication is administered, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The rising restrictions, which began to increase about a decade ago, according to Nash, come as more people are turning to medication abortion.

Medication abortion is now the most common method used for abortions in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, and accounted for almost 40% of all abortions in 2017, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Medication abortions were first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000. FDA guidelines advise that abortion-inducing pills are safe to use up to 70 days, or 10 weeks, after conception, though evidence shows it can be safe even later in pregnancy, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

In most cases in a medication abortion, mifepristone is taken first to stop the pregnancy from growing. Then, a second pill, misoprostol, is then taken to empty the uterus.

Of the two medications, mifepristone is more restricted by the FDA. Since 2011, the agency has applied a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to mifepristone, preventing it from being distributed at pharmacies or delivered by mail like other prescription drugs.

It must be ordered, prescribed and dispensed by a health care provider who meets certain qualifications, and may only be distributed in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals by a certified health care provider, according to FDA guidelines.

The FDA’s rules, combined with state restrictions like the one that appears close to becoming a law in Texas, have the effect of not only limiting when, where and how people can get abortions, but also potentially misguiding people on the safety of medication abortion, according to Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OBGYN based in Washington, D.C., and president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“The important thing to know about mifepristone is that it’s regulated as if it were a highly unsafe medication, which is the opposite of the truth,” said Perritt. “It’s actually a very, very safe medication and we have decades of medical evidence that shows people can use it on their own.”

“None of this is about safety,” she said. “It’s all about limiting access to abortion.”

The restrictions around medication abortion also limit the use of telemedicine, which is effectively banned in 19 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Complications from at-home medication abortions are rare, happening in less than 1% of cases in one study of nearly 20,000 medication abortions, according to ACOG, which says medication abortion “can be provided safely and effectively by telemedicine.”

Last year, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, and amid a rise in telemedicine, ACOG, an organization that counts more than 60,000 obstetrician–gynecologists as members, joined other groups to urge the FDA to suspend the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical clinic.

The request for the FDA to temporarily suspend the mifepristone requirement was upheld last year in lower courts. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reinstate the restrictions.

In April, the FDA, under the Biden administration, said it would stop enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement during the pandemic. States though can still set laws about dispensing mifepristone within their state.

Proponents of the FDA’s decision say that allowing greater access to medication abortion, including via telemedicine, gives more options to the people who need them the most.

Around 75% of abortion patients are low-income residents, and nearly 60% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in states where access to abortion is restricted, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

“Restrictions shape who is able to access [abortion],” said Perritt, noting that people of color, young people, immigrants and people living on low-income communities are the most affected, and adding, “We’re going to continue to see a worsening outcome for them because of it.”

ABC News’ Alexandra Svokos contributed to this report.
 

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.