From the inbox:
Right there with them
On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas filed an emergency request asking the Texas Supreme Court to intervene in an ongoing case against Texas Right to Life (TRTL), challenging Senate Bill 8, the state’s six-week abortion ban. Earlier this month, Planned Parenthood was granted a temporary injunction against the group and its associates, which blocked TRTL from suing abortion providers and health care workers at Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas under S.B. 8.
However, in yet another attempt to deprive Planned Parenthood of its day in court, at TRTL’s request, the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel stepped in and stayed all ongoing challenges to S.B. 8 in state court indefinitely. This comes despite the fact that a hearing in Planned Parenthood’s case, where it asked the court to declare S.B. 8 unconstitutional, was already scheduled for Oct. 13. Intervention by the Texas Supreme Court is urgently and immediately needed. S.B. 8 continues to cause unprecedented harm on the ground, blocking Texans from accessing their constitutional right to abortion.
[…]
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed S.B. 8 to take effect nearly one month ago, disregarding nearly 50 years of precedent by denying an emergency request to block the law’s unconstitutional pre-viability abortion ban. S.B. 8 has decimated abortion access in the state, as providers are forced to turn people away under the six-week abortion ban. Historically, the overwhelming majority — between 85 and 90% — of Texans who obtain abortions in the state are at least six weeks into pregnancy. Under S.B. 8, the first six-week abortion ban allowed to take effect since the Roe v. Wade decision, few are able to receive care in the state, forcing patients to bear the financial and emotional cost of traveling elsewhere for essential care, all during a pandemic. For many Texans, particularly those who are Black or Latino, who have low incomes, or who live in rural areas, abortion is unattainable.
Since S.B. 8 took effect, abortion has been virtually inaccessible for the 7 million women of reproductive age living in Texas. Some of the devastation caused by the law in Texas and beyond are detailed in recent declarations from Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast President & CEO Melaney Linton, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains President & CEO Vicki Cowart, and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma physician Dr. Joshua Yap in support of the U.S. Justice Department’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of S.B. 8.
See here for a bit of background. I wasn’t sure what the context of this was until I remembered that I had seen this:
With more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Texas’ near-total abortion ban stalled in state court, Planned Parenthood has asked the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court to step in and allow the cases to proceed.
Last week, the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel, which is made up of five judges, indefinitely paused 14 lawsuits filed in Travis County district court at the request of Texas Right to Life, a prominent anti-abortion organization that helped draft Texas’ abortion restriction. The panel of judges typically steps in to take action on a group of similar cases. The judges didn’t list a reason for the stay, and said the cases will remain paused until the panel makes another order.
One of the suits was filed by Planned Parenthood. It asked the court to declare the abortion law, which bans the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, unconstitutional. A hearing was scheduled for Oct. 8, the organization said, before the panel of judges paused proceedings.
In that case, the court temporarily blocked Texas Right to Life from being able to sue Planned Parenthood for potential violations of the abortion law.
“Texas Right to Life championed this blatantly unconstitutional law, but now it is doing everything it can to prevent those challenging S.B. 8 from having their day in court because TRTL knows it will lose,” Helene Krasnoff, vice president for public policy litigation and law at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “We’re urging the Texas Supreme Court to step in and move this critical case along so we can restore access to abortion across the state.”
Got to say, I had never heard of the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel before now. I can understand why it exists, but at least in this instance it seems maddeningly opaque and unaccountable. I have no idea what the rules are here, or what PP’s odds of success are, but it seems they had no other choice if they wanted to be able to pursue this kind of legal remedy. So while we all have our eyes on the federal court, this is what’s happening at the state level.
Here is why: Media omerta of all things pro-life
Texas Right to Life won a small procedural victory when the MDL Panel granted their motion for a stay of the 13 cases against it; all of them iterations of the first one (Tuegel v. State et al) which was originally filed in Dallas County, plus the one by Planned Parenthood affiliates (which does not include state officials as co-defendants), pending a decision on whether to consolidate them and send them to an MDL judge for coordinated pre-trial management. The Winterstorm/ERCOT fiasco litigation has already gone there.
So, the highly imbalanced and off-center no-longer-mainstream media completely ignored the MDL development until Planned Parenthood issued a press release about the stunt with the emergency mandamus petition against the Multi-District Litigation Panel in the SCOTX. When PP issues a press release, it’s big news all of a sudden. The other side in the litigaton – and the controversy more generally – doesn’t even get asked to comment, like they don’t exist, or have their press releases quoted (with a few notable exceptions).
THE UNMENTIONABLE COMBINATION OF WORDS: “PRO LIFE”
In the view of the erstwhile mainstream media, somehow there is only one side worth covering when it comes to abortion. And if they do cover it, the self-designation of that other side as “pro life”, that’s apparently a big No-No for quality journalists. Oh no, we can’t use that term. And a heartbeat, of course, is not really a heartbeat. Nothing to do with cardio. It’s just some kind of electric convulsive phenomenon.
Where is the commitment to objectivity and balance here?
Kuff runs a partisan political blog. Alright. He doesn’t have to be balanced and objective, and he can suppress this comment and others that might be critical if he so chooses. The mainstream media, however, is a different matter. They ought to cover both sides. That’s a longstanding guiding principle. Ditched now. Alas.
As for “winning” a temporary injunction, that’s spin too.
The order in question is denominated “Agreed”, so therefore it does not represent the result of an adversarial hearing in which the judge imposes a ruling, in which case the order would no doubt be appealed, as will happen immediately if and when USDC Judge Pitman issues an injunction against SB8 enforcement in USA v. STATE OF TEXAS. Although it is not clear what scope that might have. Perhaps it will be limited to the private intervenors that have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the federal district court. Perhaps it will purport to enjoin the State of Texas and all of its judges, court clerks, judgement-enforcement constables and sheriffs and all of the state’s inhabitants, including you and me and any and all kibitzers near and far.
Apparently you won’t have to be class-certified as an unbearable litigation threat to the abortion industry because you are adequately represented by Ken Paxton d/b/a The State of Texas as your class president (clan leader?) at the state level.
Uncle Sam (or shall we say Uncle Joe), of course, is the supreme parens patriae here, and he wants to establish his dominance over the subjects in the provinces.
Another ‘L’etat, c’est moi’ gambit now at the federal level. Slightly different framing. Assertion of supremacy no less.
Meanwhile Paxton’s lieutenants in federal court continue to pound on their master’s sovereignty. USA v. TEXAS. — Clash of the sovereigns! What a spectacle!
TAGS: media bias, coverage of controversies, framing, selectivce omission, newsworthiness judgment, law & courts journalism, SB8-related litigation, Texas Heartbeat Act
POST GENRE: Media critique, political commentary
INFO: Texas MDL Rule here: https://casetext.com/rule/texas-court-rules/texas-rules-of-judicial-administration/rule-13-multidistrict-litigation
What were thinking they were gonna get from the SCOTX?
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Orders Pronounced October 4, 2021
MISCELLANEOUS
THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:
21-0844
IN RE PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS SURGICAL HEALTH
SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS STAFF, PHYSICIANS, AND PATIENTS;
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH TEXAS SURGICAL CENTER, ON BEHALF OF
ITSELF, ITS STAFF, PHYSICIANS, AND PATIENTS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS STAFF, PHYSICIANS, AND PATIENTS; BHAVIK KUMAR, M.D., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HIS PATIENTS; from Travis County
relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief denied
Pingback: SCOTx denies Planned Parenthood emergency request – Off the Kuff