Texas courts have repeatedly denied judges’ appeals in at least two cases in which the justices of the Supreme Court were asked to delay a court ruling on the issue of abortion.
The first case was brought by two Texas abortion providers, Dr. Johnnie Jenkins and Dr. Deborah Nash, who were seeking an injunction to block the state from denying their abortions on constitutional grounds, which are not supported by science.
The second case was by a man who was denied an abortion under Texas law after a fetal heartbeat was detected in his fetal heart, but after the fetus was found to be alive, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the request to delay.
In both cases, the justices declined to hear the cases.
Judge Robert Crittenden wrote in his decision that the decision to grant the injunction “is a matter for the courts and will not be disturbed.”
The Supreme Court has long recognized the right of judges to exercise their discretion to grant or deny a motion to delay, but the court has not previously issued an opinion on whether to grant a motion in the cases involving the Texas courts.
In his order, Crittender also wrote that he would consider any request for an injunction “on the ground that the statute in question is in conflict with this Court’s opinion in Roe v.
Wade, which protects the right to abortion.”
The Texas Supreme Court denied the appeals, saying in its opinion that it has the authority to set the conditions for a stay of a Texas court’s ruling, as well as to grant an injunction.
The Supreme Center for Reproductive Rights and the Texas Women’s Health Network have filed a separate lawsuit challenging the Texas Supreme court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ requests.
Both sides have filed briefs in the Texas court cases, asking the justices to reconsider the decisions to deny them and granting the injunction.
A hearing on the case is set for May 25 in Houston.
Both cases involved a ruling from the Texas Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down Texas’ ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but ruled that the ruling applied only to cases where a fetus was detected to be live.
The Texas Court said that “a fetal heartbeat is a biological fact” and that the law was not designed to discriminate against fetuses, which it said is a “fundamental tenet of the scientific method.”
Roe v, Wade “provides a framework for assessing a claim of discrimination based on a fetus’s physical and mental state,” the Texas justices wrote.
They said that a court cannot “grant a legal right to an individual in a situation in which such a right is not supported in law or reason.”
The court noted that the fetal heartbeat “is not a medical fact.”
“It does not provide scientific support for the abortion ban that the state has asserted in its appeal,” the justices wrote in their decision.