Supreme Court considers ‘chilling effect,’ enforcement of Texas abortion law

0
23

John Yang:

Today’s challenges to the law were brought by Sadler’s Whole Woman’s Health and the Biden administration.

This is the first abortion case for a Supreme Court reshaped by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the addition of three justices nominated by President Donald Trump.

Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for “The National Law Journal,” was in the courtroom today for oral arguments. And she is in the studio now.

Marcia, welcome.

And we should make clear at the outset that today’s arguments were not about abortion rights, per se. What were they about?

Marcia Coyle, “The National Law Journal”: John, they really boiled down to whether — well, who can sue to challenge this law, and whom do you sue?

You have the United States saying it has a right to sue the state of Texas. And you have the abortion clinic Whole Woman’s Health saying it has a right to sue state court judges, state court clerks, the attorney general and others who may try to enforce this law.

So that is what we were hearing today for nearly three hours of arguments, two separate cases joined by the fact that both involved Texas’ anti-abortion law.