As if that wasn't absurd enough, the Texas state law was being challenged by an entity from another state - New York. That state's Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) sought the injunction that Sparks ultimately granted.
Now, thanks to a federal appeals court, Judge Sparks has essentially been told to go pound sand.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is pro-life, quickly filed an appeal on the same day that the lower court released the injunction with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.Why would a federal judge in Texas rule against a law passed by his state because of objections from an entity in another state that has NO business telling Texas how to run its state?
Last Tuesday, a federal three-judge panel heard arguments to determine whether to lift the injunction. The panel was critical of the grounds for the injunction and Jonathan Mitchell, Solicitor General, argued for the law before the panel. Mitchell explained that the level of scrutiny and the arguments used to rule the law as unconstitutional — and thus block the law from going into effect — were misapplied and needed to be overturned.
Chief Judge Edith Jones, of the three-judge panel, asked pro-abortion attorneys how medical sonogram imaging, and a factual description of that image could be viewed as radical or against the health of women.
Today, the court ruled the state can enforce the law and said Judge Sparks was wrong to rule that abortion practitioners would likely win their case in court.
When Newt talks about holding Judges accountable, Sam Sparks is a perfect example.
The degree to which Sparks and CRR were willing to go reveals something else too. Pro-abortionists know the law will lead to less abortions.
Sparks did with this bill what federal Judge Susan Bolton did to Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070), likely for the same reason. Fear that it would work and that the insane leftist agenda would take a hit.
h/t Weasel Zippers