By: John Krinjak
“And the bottom line is life won. The body within a woman’s body is not that woman’s body,” said Amy O’Donnell of the Texas Alliance for Life.
“Things are not black and white. There’s gray area to everything, and they’re hurting real people with this law, whether that was intended or not,” said Taylor.
By: GILBERT GARCIA
Let’s put aside, for a moment, the fact that most of Prop A is likely to be disregarded by our municipal government if it passes, because City Attorney Andy Segovia says the justice-director provision is the only piece of it that doesn’t violate state law.
Let’s also put aside, for a moment, the fact that if Prop A passes, its abortion-decriminalization provision will be challenged in court by Texas Alliance for Life, an Austin-based anti-abortion group.
Let’s pretend that voters approve Prop A and the city actually implements it. What would that mean for San Antonians? In truth, much would remain the same.
No one is currently getting arrested in this city for providing or receiving an abortion. That wouldn’t change.
By: Mercedes Yanora
IN RE MARIA TERESA RAMIREZ MORRIS, AND TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR LIFE, INC. (Dissenting), where dissenting justices argued against the above opinion. They claimed the court should grant partial relief to the voter by directing San Antonio to hold the proposed charter amendment election in November rather than May.
By: Michael Karlis
Although the petition filed by Texas Alliance for Life garnered support from state GOP members, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the state’s highest court ultimately ruled that it doesn’t have the power to “stymie” an election. Further litigation would only be appropriate if the measure passes, the justices added.
“The power of initiative is reserved to the people, not granted to them,” Justice Jane N. Bland wrote in her opinion. “Courts must not lightly usurp that power. Our role is to facilitate elections, not to stymie them, and to review the consequences of those elections as the Legislature prescribes.”
By: Molly Smith
“This precedent invites municipalities to disregard well-established election laws regarding charter amendments, protections for unborn babies, and numerous other issues, an unintended but foreseeable consequence,” Texas Alliance for Life spokesperson Amy O’Donnell said in a written statement.
If approved, the Justice Charter, which will appear on the ballot as Proposition A, would amend the city charter to bar police from investigating or making arrests for abortion-related crimes and misdemeanor marijuana possession. It would also expand the city’s cite-and-release program, ban police from using chokeholds and no-knock warrants, and create a city justice director to oversee these policy changes.
City Attorney Andy Segovia, however, maintains that San Antonio could only enforce the justice director provision, calling the others “inconsistent” with state law.
By: Megan Stringer
What they’re saying: The Texas Supreme Court’s decision adhered “to our longstanding commitment to avoid undue interference with elections,” Justice Jane Bland wrote.
“Our team spent countless hours on research, we know we are well within our legal right,” organizers behind Proposition A wrote on Twitter after the ruling.
The other side: “We are tremendously disappointed in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision … despite obvious violations of state law,” said Amy O’Donnell, the communications director for Texas Alliance for Life, which sought the legal challenge, in a statement.