By: Jack Phillips

Texas’s law allows private citizens—except for an individual who impregnated a woman through rape or incest—to sue physicians who perform abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

“The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” the Supreme Court’s majority wrote in an opinion earlier this week. “But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”

A number of pro-life organizations such as the Texas Alliance for Life praised the Supreme Court’s decision, while pro-abortion groups decried the move.

By: Emma Platoff and Jazmine Ulloa

Even in Texas, it was not universally embraced by antiabortion advocates; the Texas Alliance for Life, which is sometimes at odds with the separate Texas Right to Life group, was neutral on the measure, citing the likelihood that it would be struck down in the courts. Many prominent Republicans who support abortion restrictions, such as Senator John Cornyn of Texas, have so far refrained from celebrating the high court’s decision, a potential indication that they predict turbulent political waters for the law.

By: Nicole Russell

Joe Pojman, the executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, explained the portion of the law that describes potential civil liabilities for violating, aiding, or abetting it. While Texas Alliance for Life did not draft the legislation, the organization supports it and believes it is well-written.

“Any individual can sue an abortion provider, the physician, nurses, other staff, or other individuals or organizations in assisting women in getting an abortion,” Pojman said. “The enforcement is all private. It comes from individuals suing someone who performs an abortion or assists someone in getting an abortion.”

What about the Uber driver who drives a woman to an abortion clinic or the therapist who discovers her client wants an abortion, has planned an abortion, or has even had one?

Pojman said a person would have to “knowingly violate the law.” The Uber driver, unless he or she is very familiar, would not knowingly be violating the law, Pojman clarified.

By: BETHANY IRVINE

Anti-abortion groups and conservative leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott, have seized on the the imagery of a heartbeat when describing the law.

In a tweet, Texas Alliance for Life, an anti-abortion group based in Austin, posted a photo of its members with Abbott from the bill signing, holding up both hands to create a symbolic heart.

“Despite numerous legal challenges, The Texas Heartbeat Act, signed by pro-life @GovAbbott, went into effect today. We celebrate the lives of unborn children who will be protected from abortion as a result,” the tweet said.

By: Liam Cole

Dr. Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, told VERIFY that the pro-life organization he founded in 1988 was adamant that there must be an exception included in SB 8 to allow a physician to terminate a pregnancy if the mother’s life is in danger.

“We have to have those exceptions for the life of the mother. Fortunately, those cases are very rare with modern science, but it could happen in the case of an ectopic, in other words, tubal pregnancy, when the unborn child is developing not in the uterus of the mother, but in a fallopian tube and if left unattended that fallopian tube could rupture, the child will certainly die, and it could risk the life of the mother through hemorrhaging. So, that has to be treated and the treatment is to take action to the end of pregnancy. The intent, of course, is not to take the life of the child, but to save the mother’s life, and an unintended result is that the child will die,” said Dr. Pojman.

Pojman says his organization did not recommend that the Texas Legislature include exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

“We have to recognize that the terrible, violent act of aggression of a rapist against a woman is an absolutely hideous act — it’s a bodily violation of that woman. But the question is, if in rare cases that that act results in the pregnancy of the woman, what’s the best thing for all parties involved? And, of course, we’re talking about the mother and the unborn child. We do not think a compassionate society should advocate the death of the unborn child because of the terrible act of the father of the child; that child is also an innocent victim, just as the woman,” said Pojman.