Abortion Providers Plead With Supreme Court To Allow Abortion Pills in Texas

"Delaying abortions by weeks does nothing to further the State's interest in combatting COVID-19," they say.


Several states have tried to block abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now abortion providers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Alabama, Ohio, and Texas have declared temporary bans on all or most abortion procedures, justifying this with vague nods toward conserving resources for COVID-19 treatment. Groups in each state have filed federal suits to try to block the restrictions from taking effect. And in all three cases, U.S. district judges ruled at the end of March that they would at least temporarily suspend the bans.

Texas appealed this preliminary injunction against enforcing the ban, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the state. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel then narrowed the injunction to say authorities could ban surgical abortion but not the prescribing of abortion pills. On Friday, the 5th Circuit overruled this order too, declaring it fine for Texas to ban abortion as part of COVID-19 social distancing orders except in cases where waiting longer would push a woman past the legal time frame for terminating a pregnancy.

Abortion providers are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit's decision.

On Saturday, several Texas Planned Parenthood centers and abortion providers filed an emergency petition with the Court. "As a consequence of the [5th Circuit's ruling], virtually all Texas residents with unplanned pregnancies are unable to access early abortion care through medication abortion and must instead wait until they reach a more advanced stage of pregnancy," it states.

"Delaying abortions by weeks does nothing to further the State's interest in combatting COVID-19," suggested Planned Parenthood et al., "and indeed runs directly contrary to that interest: individuals will require more health care—even in the short-term—if they remain pregnant than if they have a desired abortion, and some will engage in risky, out-of-state travel in an attempt to access earlier abortion services, thus increasing contagion risks in the midst of a pandemic."

The abortion providers' appeal was addressed to Justice Samuel Alito, who can now refer the case to other justices or rule on his own.

Meanwhile in Alabama, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson followed up on his initial temporary block of the state's abortion restrictions with a Sunday ruling. It concluded that "efforts to combat COVID-19 do not outweigh the lasting harm imposed by the denial of an individual's right to terminate her pregnancy, by an undue burden or increase in risk on patients imposed by a delayed procedure" or by prosecuting abortion doctors.

In Ohio, a trio of federal appellate judges decided on April 6 to uphold the lower court's temporary block on abortion ban enforcement. Last Friday, a federal judge extended this block on enforcement for two additional weeks.

NEXT: The 'False Debate' About Reopening the Economy Is the One That Ignores the Enormous Human Cost of Sweeping COVID-19 Control Measures

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well they’d be born just to die of covid so they’re really just trying to nip this thing in the bud. No harm no foul.

    1. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile.. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her…….More here

  2. How about using fucking condoms so you don’t have to kill your kids?

    If they would only let people by birth control pills over the counter it would cut down on the slaughter.

    1. Are you listening to the words coming out of your mouth!

    2. Fuck off, slaver. A woman should be able to ingest anything she wants.

      1. Chipper. Proudly supporting crack babies since forever.

      2. As long as it doesn’t emit CO2 because WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

    3. I am a proponent of whore pills.

  3. I mean, aren’t a whole host of elective health procedures being put on hiatus? Shouldn’t those abortionists be redirected to ‘regular old healthcare’ or something? They’re ‘doctors’ right? Right?!


    I mean, personally I think the whole thing is stupid but I’m all out of shocked face that far leftists want carve outs from their own policies. Par for the course.

    1. Lol. You’re full of shit if you think it’s just leftists getting abortions.

      1. Both leftists and rightists can violate their own principles. Some rightists kill their children, some leftists seek to get their children a good private education.

        When righties violate their professed principles they harm themselves or their families. When lefties violate their professed principles they help themselves or their families.

        1. Eddy, do you believe that personhood begins at conception?

          1. Yes, how did you guess?

            1. Are you aware that if you cleave a mammalian blastomere in two and let both develop, you will get two separate, complete, yet genetically identical individuals? And that if you take two separate blastomeres and mash them together, you will get a single individual that is a genetic chimera? Thus, a mammal’s selfhood is not even determined at the blastomere stage. No self, no person. Otherwise the concept of personhood makes no sense.

              1. A common argument, though when a living being has the potentiality of developing along the normal lines of human development then I’d say it’s human enough, even if it can potentially be changed into a couple different human beings, or combined with another human being to make a single being.

                And of course you still haven’t justified much of the actual abortions which get performed, those which occur after the possibilities you mention have passed.

                1. But there will come a day when we will be able to induce pluripotency in most cells harvested from a human body. Based on your criteria, any removal of live cells from a human would be tantamount to an abortion. So your definition cannot form the basis for personhood.

                  1. No, if a cell gets turned into an individual, separate human being it will be time enough to talk about personhood.

                    Your argument is reminiscent of the “why don’t we preserve all sperm” talking point.

                  2. Will be able to (huge speculation on your part and pluripotency does NOT mean that the cell will develop into a complete functioning organism) != exists.

                    Your (typical) syllogism fail:

                    Guns can kill people
                    I have a gun
                    Therefore I am a murderer.

              2. Are you aware that it has a separate genetic signature than the host? Because if you do, youd understand how ignorant your point is.

              3. That’s remarkably stupid. Are you claiming that clones are not separate life forms? Did separating one individual into two destroy the former?

                Are you aware that viruses can insert code into human cells turning them into chimeras, not to mention random mutations and cancer. By your reasoning as soon as any part of your body changes it is no longer you, so I can kill virtually any adult at any time.

            2. I wonder if all of those good Christian women using IUDs know that they’re murdering their babies every month?

              1. I wonder why all those good libertarians get so upset when a clump of cells is killed on death row.

                1. You don’t get it. It’s not the clump of cells that libertarians care about but rather handing the power to kill its own citizens to those imperfect clumps of cells we select to govern.

      2. Most conservative people have some kind of principles. Leftists tend not to. Progressivism has no real moral compass and therefore attracts sociopathic types. Which always the case when you have no real objective morality.

        Of course exceptions exist on both sides. But progressives tend to be amoral, and often evil.

        1. Save the pillow talk for Friday night Shitty. 😉

          1. You’re evil. Just admit it.

        2. They believe in the pre-cautionary principle. It’s dogma to them except for this topic of course.

  4. At some point I certainly hope the Supreme Court will abort Roe v. Wade and the Casey decision. I doubt that they’d ever say the unborn have a constitutional right to life, but at the very least they could say it’s up to the states, which would be an improvement over what we have now.

    The “constitutional right to abortion” not only is “harmful to children and other living things” (to quote the hippie bumper sticker in another context), it contaminates other areas of law, from First Amendment law to — now – public health law.

    At least overcoming the Abortion Power shouldn’t require a civil war like it took to overcome the Slave Power. The slavers controlled a discrete territory and had a lot of the best military officers. The “don’t call us pro-abortion” faction has a tenuous hold on the courts and a much stronger hold on the media and academia, but let’s see how many votes that can translate into.

    1. If you want to play the “Constitutional” game – the actual WORD used to establish life rights is “born”.

  5. if I can’t get my Tommy John you can’t kill your unborn.

  6. Blood-thirsty bitch

    1. So long as we focus on the subjective feelings of women having abortions, then the “don’t call us pro-abortion” side will respond with sad tales of women who felt they had no other option. Which of course is a useful state of mind for women to be in if your goal is for them to pay for an abortion (not that sordid financial gain ever motivates abortionists, that’s a total myth, guys!).

      So instead of feelz-based subjectivity about what’s going through people’s heads when they have an abortion, why not focus on the essential issue that it kills a living human being.

      1. Also, the premise that an abortion is the only escape from their problems is wrong, which is why the protesters (when they’re allowed to gather) strive to let the women know of options which don’t involve doing an abortion. If she truly can’t deal with a child right now, then they’re nonjudgmental adoption.

        And if the “don’t call us pro-abortion” crowd wants to talk about choice, why not ask about whether they carefully vet their patients to see if they’re being coerced by their boyfriends or parents into having the abortion? I’m sure they’ll say they check for such coercion, but the pay they get from doing abortions may tend to bias their judgment and make them less inclined to see coercion where it exists.

        1. Glad you brought up abolition — let us remember slavery was ONLY ended by war, the death of over 300, 000 Democrats and the temporary disenfranchisement of most of the rest.

          Does it look like today’s Democrats are any likelier to have learned that lesson and NOT bring another secession/war?

          1. You do realize that the Democrats were a national party. And that there were tons of northern Democrats too, right?

      2. Unless they are comatose or dying (and even then) they have a choice. This is all about not wanting to be inconvenienced.

        Progressivism always has been and always will be a death cult. I can see why it’s so appealing to the modern nihilists like Brown.

        1. But being right-wing counterparts to Rev. Artie doesn’t appeal to anyone on the fence.

          Fortunately, when they’re allowed to talk to the women at abortion clinics, the prolifers show themselves so different from the stereotypes (and from certain Internet posters) that the women may actually listen to the talk of alternatives.

          Of course, the “ultimate true agenda” of prolifers is to provide legal protection to the unborn, not simply to make John Woolmanesque moral appeals not to be unjust.


          1. I’m not trying to appeal to fence sitters and Brown certainly isn’t one–remember we have to support abortion because otherwise we’ll spend more on Medicaid! I’m calling Reason out on its whitewash of everything woke and its glaring hypocrisy.

  7. It’s amazing to me that the very people who jump up and down for abortion rights (actual murder) also jump up and down for mandated vaccination (the perceived idea that others will die even though they themselves are able to get vaccinated since supposed “people who can’t get vaccinated” literally don’t exist- there are no medical exemptions that are recognized anymore, even cancer).

  8. Another rousing joint meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

    Bigoted Clinger Chapter, in each case.

    Faux libertarians are among my favorite vanquished casualties of the American culture war.

    1. Once again, your reference to “ladyparts” suggests men can’t get pregnant.

      Which makes your a cisnormative, bigoted, science denier.

  9. The number of abortions performed each year is about half of what it was 30 years ago. Why is that do you think. Clearly fewer women believe they have to do it, or even need to now.

  10. Where in the constitution does it give the Supreme Court the right to amend the constitution? For that matter where does it say the SC can decide what law is constitutional? The States have the final and absolute say in determining if a federal law is constitutional or not and in interpreting the constitution. Abortion is not listed in the Bill of Rights and your right to life is stated in the Declaration of Independence..which is a legally binding document (despite what the SC says). Absence of an amendment legalizing abortion, States have the only say on this..end of story wokes.

  11. The one subject the right gets completely wrong.

    You cannot champion individual freedom while running around screaming for “banning” laws that dictate other peoples PERSONAL <-KEYWORD life's clear down to basic control over their own body and the type of healthcare they choose. This is where the right turns flat-out dictative in a puritan fashion.

    A seed IS NOT a plant; no matter how many times you run around screaming the propaganda deceitful phrase about killing plants.

    1. If it is the proper place of government to defend the rights of the people, among them the right to life, then certain actions that violate such rights must be banned. These actions must be banned no matter what the persons who would do such violations believe about them.

      1. So you’re against government sponsored war as well as the death penalty. Or are you going to contradict your last sentence?

        1. Are you suggesting that due process rights are applicable to those to be killed in abortions or that abortion clinics are legitimate military targets?

          1. And when a child is incapable of being responsible for representing themselves in due process rights – WHO represents them??? Oh, that’s right – their parents NOT you who is trying to suppress their parents will.

            Your fallacy that you are the inherent parents of everyone else’s children is part of your flawed logic. It plays right into how the State is pretending every child isn’t a child of its parents but a child of the State.

            Communism – It’s for the children….

      2. The “right to life” as defined in the U.S. Constitution is marked by the point of “born” (exact word used to establish citizenship). Roe v. Wade established 21-weeks – – which is ALREADY wildly conservative. Anyone still screaming about a “right to life” at this point (21-weeks) is just pretending they have a right to dictate other peoples personal life’s. They just as well be insisting that any homeless bum that shows up unexpectedly and breaks into your families home against one’s own will has more rights to live there than your right to kick them out. They need to learn a lesson about keeping their big fat noses out of other peoples personal life’s instead of playing this “seed is a plant” excuses game.

  12. Reason said that when Trump’s judges overturned Roe, it wouldn’t matter because there would be easy access to medication that could induce abortions.

    Has Reason investigated whether this has turned about to be true, in practice, in Texas?

    1. It’s a pretty common practice according to the web; the “abortion pill”. The only side-effect is prescribing it requires a waiver to choice of surgical abortion if the pill fails to work as expected. They don’t (and shouldn’t have to) want to deal with severely wild birth defects because someone-else decides a completely nonfunctional deformed fetus is more important than any amount of human suffering it may bring.

  13. Man, that sign.

    I think it’s definitely amoral to force women to get pregnant against their will. We really should prevent states from doing that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.