NRL News

Texas Right to Life Defends Against 14 Lawsuits Regarding Texas Heartbeat Act

by | Nov 11, 2021

By Texas Right to Life

Planned Parenthood and 13 other members of the abortion industry are targeting Texas Right to Life over our advocacy and support for the Texas Heartbeat Act. Judge David Peeples held a hearing Wednesday in Van Stean v. Texas Right to Life in Austin, Texas. 

The legal attacks heard today in court will not block citizens from enforcing the Texas Heartbeat Act, and Planned Parenthood directly admitted that they will not be able to return to business as usual even if the judge rules in their favor. 

Pro-abortion attorneys made clear their true motivations for this lawsuit: silencing Texas Right to Life. “Texas Right to Life and John Seago are the biggest threats to Planned Parenthood,” their lawyer stated in today’s hearing. 

The abortion business’ attorneys argued that a ruling against Texas Right to Life and the Texas Heartbeat Act would have “persuasive power,” meaning the anti-Life ruling could possibly convince other Pro-Life activists, judges, and attorneys not to hold abortionists accountable to the law. 

“This is an absolute abuse of the judicial system and turns our courts into shills for the abortion industry,” Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz said. “Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have not alleged that Texas Right to Life or John Seago have done anything unconstitutional. They’re attacking us because of our beliefs.”

Regardless of the outcome of this hearing, we expect the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. 

The abortion industry is attempting to punish Texas Right to Life for supporting the Texas Heartbeat Act and having the ability to hold them accountable to the law. We will not be deterred. Texas Right to Life is fully committed to fighting these invalid legal attacks and we are confident that these cases will ultimately be resolved with the rule of law and Pro-Lifers’ constitutional right of free speech upheld.

Categories: Judicial