The general headline "Texas abortion law goes into effect, banning abortions as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy" is the claim by NBC, ABC, CNN, and other media outlets.
In this case, we are not checking a fact check, but the accuracy of the premise reporting a supposed "fact".
NBC
The dramatic headline NBC published read:
"Texas abortion clinics turning away patients as strict new law takes effect
The law, which bans abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy, took effect at midnight."
Looking no further than NBC's article begins to unravel the actual truth. In the same article NBC states:
"Texas' ban bars state officials from enforcing it"
If the state "banned" it, but also "banned" anyone from enforcing it, then how is it banned? The short answer is that it really isn't banned.
On paper it does meet the legal definition of "ban" as it has been legally "prohibited", with several exceptions such as medical conditions, emergency's, defective heartbeat or child, etc...
However, the state will not enforce the law. There's is no criminal liability. There is no penalty. There is no law enforcement. Rather, it allows a civil liability which means a private citizen can file a private lawsuit for up to $10,000, which is essentially small claims court. Notably, only one person can file one claim per abortion.
Reuters
Reuters reported a similar headline with a quote from President Joe Biden.
‘The Texas law will significantly impair women’s access to the health care they need, particularly for communities of color and individuals with low incomes,’ Biden said
Apparently, Joe Biden hasn't been to Texas in the past couple decades. It's most populous cities such as San Antonio(#2), Austin (#4), and El Paso(#5), Corpus Christi(#8), and of course Houston(#1) which is also the 4th largest city in the nation, are all predominantly people of color. There are no "communities of color", there are just "communities". Additionally, the state of Texas is one of the 6 states in the United States where US minorities are the majority which means white's are minorities in Texas.
Houston, TX is nearly 50% Hispanic, with about equal populations of black and white people at 22.4% and 23.3% respectively, and 88% of Houston residents are from other countries.
Other cities such as Brownsville are 80% minority or more. Thus Biden's statement does not make sense. In regards to low income individuals, there are specific provisions in the law to protect them in Sec. 171.208.
How any of this impairs heath care access is further diluted and unfounded.
New York Times
The New York Times (NYT) make several false claims.
Does the law make exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother?
NYT claims there are no exceptions regarding rape or incest which is simply not true. Sec. 171.208(j) does specifically that. It states:
(j) Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.
Given the fact that anyone other that father or medical staff would even have access to the record of abortion short of violating privacy and HIPAA laws, it's doubtful.
In restricting (a more proper word used by NYT) abortions NYT claims that:
The law bars abortions once cardiac activity can be detected in the embryo. This typically occurs around the sixth week of pregnancy.
This in answering the question "Is the law a complete ban on abortions". However what the NYT fails to mention is the definition of "fetal heartbeat" which is defined as:
(1) "Fetal heartbeat" means cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.
Further claiming that activity as early as 6-weeks can be detected. However, doctors argue that early activity is not actually cardiac activity, including NYT's own expert's opinion as stated in the article, and in Sec. 171.208 it is stated:
(c) In making a determination under Subsection (b), the physician must use a test that is: (1) consistent with the physician's good faith and reasonable understanding of standard medical practice; and (2) appropriate for the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the pregnant woman and her pregnancy.
Which leaves a broad area for a doctor to determine what is and what is not a legitimate "cardiac activity" and a steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetus doesn't occur until 10 to 12 weeks.
NYT presents the Roe v. Wade question as:
Doesn’t Roe v. Wade guarantee a woman’s right to abortion? Can the Texas law be challenged on constitutional grounds?
To this, NYT lays out it's largest false claim:
The Texas law bars state officials from actually enforcing it, a design intended to make it difficult to challenge in the courts. Usually a lawsuit aiming to block such a law as unconstitutional names state officials as defendants. Instead, the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win.
First of all, whereas the law does not restrict what citizens can or cannot file a lawsuit, other than those employed by the state, it does require whomever files the suit to have damages.
A father can show damages of being deprived his child, as could a would be grandmother. However, "John, down the street" would have no damages. Moreover, "John, down the street" wouldn't have knowledge of the abortion short of being in the room when it happened, a medical worker committing a HIPAA violation, or the patient just up and volunteering her medical records with consent to disclose them. All of which are very unlikely scenarios.
They also fail to mention the $10,000 is a cap on damages allowed, not a fine or automatic award of any sort, and only one per abortion is allowed, so only one person can sue one time in connection with the abortion.
The insinuation that Roe v. Wade is ignored is absolutely false, rather, Sec. 171.208(g) specifically supports Roe v. Wade:The law specifically allows an affirmative action defense.(g) This section may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution.
