Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
    • Terms and Conditions
      • Opt-out preferences
  • Presentations
    • Building Bridges
    • Secular Post-Abortion Healing
    • Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths
    • Don’t Feed The Trolls
    • Overlooked Findings of the Turnaway Study
    • A Secular Case Against Abortion
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
    • Collections
      • Becoming Pro-Life
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Ask An Atheist
      • LGBTQ and Pro-Life
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
    • Print Materials
      • 100 Pro-Life Sign Ideas
      • Overview of SPL
      • 3 Reasons to tell people you’re pro-life
      • How to talk (not fight) about abortion
      • Bridges PRC Curriculum
      • Fetal Remains Disposition Protocol
      • FAQ handout
      • Presentations overview card
    • Store
  • Contact
    • General Inquiries
    • Book a Speaker
  • Get Involved
    • Why support SPL?
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Volunteer Survey
    • More Surveys
      • Why do you support SPL?
      • Best and Worst Abortion Arguments
      • “Ask An Atheist” Interview
      • Non-Traditional Pro-Life Survey
      • LGBT Pro-Life Survey
      • Parents experiences with prenatal screening
      • Your experiences with adoption
      • Your experiences with processing abortion
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

The Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments in Texas Heartbeat Act Case

October 25, 2021/0 Comments/in Legislation, laws, & court cases, Uncategorized /by Kelsey Hazzard

The Supreme Court has taken up the Biden administration’s lawsuit against the Texas Heartbeat Act and will hear oral arguments next Monday, November 1. This will not be an argument about the incorrectness of Roe and Casey. The Court has limited its consideration to one issue: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit [the Texas Heartbeat Act] from being enforced.”

I’m fluent in legalese (thank you, University of Virginia School of Law), so allow me to translate this into plain English. “Injunctive” describes an injunction, which prohibits a party from doing something. “Declaratory” describes an order in which a court determines (“declares”) a party’s rights or obligations. 

Both injunctive and declaratory forms of relief are applied to parties – that is, a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit. If someone is possibly going to be subject to an injunction or a declaration, that person must have an opportunity to make their case to the judge first; that’s basic due process. For that reason, injunctions and declarations are not supposed to just exist in the ether, unconnected to any party. 

But that is what the Biden administration is requesting here: an injunction or declaration against “all private parties” who might sue someone for aiding or abetting the killing of a preborn child under the Texas Heartbeat Act. “All private parties” would encompass every pro-life person in the State of Texas, and obviously, they aren’t parties to this lawsuit. Neither are the individual “state court judges, state court clerks, [or] other state officials” who might preside over future Texas Heartbeat Act cases. 

If this case were not about abortion, the answer would be obvious and dull: you can’t obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against non-parties. But since this is an abortion case, and abortion industry supporters deeply resent Texas legislators’ clever procedural maneuver to protect babies in the womb, expect next week’s argument to be quite spicy indeed. 

Justice Sotomayor has already set the tone, writing a deeply disturbing opinion which accompanied the November 1 scheduling order. (I’m pleasantly surprised that none of the other pro-abortion Justices joined her screed.) You can read the whole thing at this link; if you’d just like a flavor, here are some highlights, in which I’ve replaced euphemisms like “abortion care” with the reality of the situation:

  • “The promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking [to kill their unborn children with heartbeats] who are entitled to relief now. These women will suffer personal harm from [their children’s continued survival], and as their pregnancies progress, they may even be unable to obtain [a dead baby] altogether. Because every day the Court fails to [allow the killing of Texas babies to resume] is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole, I dissent.”
  • “On a human level, the District Court relied on credible declarations that described the threat of liability under [the Texas Heartbeat Act] as ‘nothing short of agonizing’ for [Texans who kill helpless unborn babies for profit].” 
  • “Those without the ability to [travel to an abortionist outside of Texas], whether due to lack of money or childcare or employment flexibility or the myriad other constraints that shape people’s day-to-day lives, may be forced to [let their babies live and be born] against their wishes…” 

During the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, she testified that “The process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It’s the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome.” Those were the days. 

[Photo credit: Supreme Court of the United States]

Tags: law
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021_Roberts_Court_Formal_131209_Web2.jpg 1000 1500 Kelsey Hazzard https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Kelsey Hazzard2021-10-25 10:30:002021-12-03 15:29:41The Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments in Texas Heartbeat Act Case
You might also like
Lautenberg’s shocking comment
Yeah, about that bizarre “Satanic abortions” story
Do Pro-Life Laws Endanger Women’s Lives?
Pro-choice states have just as many unintended pregnancies, and far more abortions
Victory in Baltimore
Sources for Secular Pro-Life’s “Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths” speech.
Quick News Roundup 04/30/10
How to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Pro-Life Laws
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Abortion pills
  • Administrative
  • Adoption & Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • Dialogue strategy
  • en español
  • Later Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, & court cases
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • Speeches, Discussions, Presentations
  • SPL Emails
  • They Can Hear You
  • Top SPL Articles
  • Top SPL Graphics
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Year In Review
  • Your Stories

Archive

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright 2025 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup
Why artificial wombs pose a challenge to pro-choice personhood arguments All Eyes on the Race for Governor of Virginia
Scroll to top
Manage Consent

To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}

Subscribe for Livestream Updates and More

* indicates required

Interests

Want to receive our email newsletter?

We’d be happy to keep in touch. Subscribe for access to our newsletter and other updates.