The state of Texas filed a response to Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction against House Bill 2 — a set of strengthened abortion regulations — on Oct. 15.
This response outlined what the state perceives to be flaws in the argument supporting Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction. Among the flaws is a rebuttal to research done by UT professor Joseph Potter, which was used by Planned Parenthood as evidence that the new regulations could harm women seeking abortions.
“Potter asserts that ‘at least one-third of currently licensed clinics will stop providing abortions entirely,’ but he does not apply any methodology to reach that conclusion, and he does not even explain how he came up with that figure,” the state’s brief stated.
The state’s response centers around the claim that the plaintiffs, including Planned Parenthood and other clinics providing abortions, are compromising the constitutional rights of their patients and their physician-employees. As alleged by the state, the plaintiffs are compromising these rights by challenging the new “health and safety regulations” imposed by the government.
Potter’s team is withholding further comment until the plaintiff’s reply papers are submitted on Oct. 18, which will then be followed by a hearing in court on Oct. 21. The state refused to comment.