The Center for Reproductive Rights announced it is filing a federal lawsuit today against the State of Texas over a rule set to go into effect Dec. 19. The rule requires abortion providers and hospitals to bury or cremate fetal remains from miscarriages and abortions 鈥� regardless of gestation time or a woman鈥檚 wishes.
This agency rule was proposed shortly after the state lost in June. That鈥檚 the U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down parts of House Bill 2, a restrictive 2013 abortion law also challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
According to a press release from the groups, the Whole Woman鈥檚 Health clinics and the center are working together again to challenge the state's latest measure.
鈥淭he lawsuit demands that the state halt implementation of regulations late last month by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS),鈥� group鈥檚 said in a press release. 鈥淭he final rules disregard widespread objection from medical organizations, legal experts and others who argue that these unconstitutional new restrictions offer no public health or safety benefit.鈥�
, saying he 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 believe human and fetal remains should be treated like medical waste and disposed of in landfills.鈥�
But abortion rights groups say requiring all women to bury or cremate fetal remains is unconstitutional.
鈥淭hese regulations are an insult to Texas women, the rule of law and the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared less than six months ago that medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion access are unconstitutional,鈥� said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. 鈥淭hese insidious regulations are a new low in Texas' long history of denying women the respect that they deserve to make their own decision about their lives and their healthcare.鈥�
Earlier this year, that also required abortion providers and hospitals to cremate or bury fetal remains, among other things.
The Indiana law was signed by then-governor and current Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Like the Indiana law, attorneys say Texas' measure faces tough legal odds because of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
鈥淭he Supreme Court just in the Whole Woman鈥檚 Health Case in June held that a law that imposes pointless burdens that offer no benefit to women and simply cuts off access to medical care is unconstitutional,鈥� said David Brown, an attorney Center for Reproductive Rights.
The lawsuit was filed by Brown and Molly Duane of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Austin attorneys Jan Soifer and Patrick O鈥機onnell of the law firm O鈥機onnell & Soifer, and J. Alexander Lawrence of the law firm Morrison & Foerster in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of Whole Woman鈥檚 Health, Brookside Women鈥檚 Health Center and Austin Women鈥檚 Health Center, Alamo Women鈥檚 Reproductive Services, Reproductive Services and Dr. Lendol Davis.
You can read the filing in its entirety below.
Copyright 2020 KUT 90.5. To see more, visit . 9(MDAxODQzOTgwMDEyMTcyNjI4MTAxYWQyMw004))
