The emails show Texas’ key consultant putting words into the mouths of the state’s so-called expert witnesses, attempting to persuade them to selectively exclude data that did not match his anti-choice bias, and, in one case, walking extremely close to the line of outright ghostwriting what were supposed to be independent reports.
On the last day of arguments in the latest challenge to Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, Judge Lee Yeakel pushed lawyers both for the plaintiffs and the State of Texas to answer the key question posed in practically every abortion case since Roe v. Wade: “Exactly what is an undue burden?”
On Thursday, the State of Texas called its final defense witnesses arguing for the necessity of new abortion regulations that require abortion-providing doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and abortion facilities to operate as hospital-like ambulatory surgical centers.
On Wednesday, the State of Texas presented its first witnesses in a federal court hearing concerning the latest legal challenge to HB 2, the state’s omnibus anti-abortion law.
Two Texas abortion providers testified in federal court today about the difficulties they say they’ve faced keeping their doors open after the passage of Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, HB 2.
On Monday, the first day of a new legal challenge to Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, expert witnesses testified that regulations in the state have negatively affected the ability of pregnant people who live in south and west Texas to access legal abortion care.
Texas abortion providers are challenging a law that requires them to operate as hospital-like ambulatory surgical centers before it is scheduled to go into effect September 1.