Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I, Donald P. Wilcox, a member of the

bar of this Court, certify that the accompanying Brief of Texas Medical Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner contains 4,207 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Sup.

Date: October 27, 2021

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

Amici can demonstrate irrefu- tably that if the law is preliminarily enjoined many, many women will be irreparably injured with “devas- tating psychological injuries,” as this Court has recog- nized in Casey at 882.

Abortion Survivors have a vested interest in the Court’s position in this case as they owe their very lives 4 Here are the written affidavits or declarations under pen- alty of perjury of the 410 Texas Amici Women Hurt By Abor- tion: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o2z2o9doxn3h0q5/AABHjkv-Pwvse df5Rs_emo3ga?dl=0 These testimonies were collected by Opera- tion Outcry, a project of The Justice Foundation, beginning in 2000 on behalf of Norma McCorvey (the former “Roe” of Roe v. Wade) and Sandra Cano (the former “Doe” of Doe v. Bolton) as they filed Rule 60 Motions in their efforts to reverse their own landmark cases.

These Amici, many of whom are women, some are men; as all can speak to the dev- astation and irreparable harm to the child in the womb, weighing in on whether the Court should stay the Texas law from going into effect, even in the short run.

Domestic abuse ran rampant among NFL players for decades, but only Ray Rice, whose battery was captured on camera ever faced significant penalty.

In balancing the equities in this case, their experiences, their evidence, their voices can assist this Court in determining on the scales of justice whether aborting babies is murder or just a medical procedure?

In THE Supreme Court of the Anited States WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH,ET AL., Petitioners, ¥.

STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., Respondents,

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 6,116 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Colin Casey Hoga Wilson-Epes Printing Co., Inc.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 27, 2021, three (3) copies of the BRIEF OF LEGAL

FRIEDMAN, AND FRED O. SMITH AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER in the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:

1115 H Street, N.E.

District of Columbia My commission expires April 14, 2022. yhdday, *.

* iy s% > ait a. , ¥ ae ey w Oa hie Fae?

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 27, 2021, three (3) copies of the BRIEF OF INDIANA,

SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTSin the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:

1115 H Street, N.E.

COLIN CASEY can NoTARY PUBLIC District of Columbia My commission expires April 14, 2022.

The patient had detectable embryonic cardiac activity on the day of her scheduled procedure after having none the day before.

She never contacted a clinic in Texas because she believed none of them were providing abortions due to S.B. 8.

The Court explained that the private plaintiffs had “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law,” but it determined that they had not “carried their burden” of showing a likelihood of success on the merits because of “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” resulting from the law’s unprecedented design—principally, whether the individual officials named in the lawsuit were proper defendants under Ex parte Young.

The State’s concrete interest in that law does not disappear merely because the State has dele- gated its enforcement authority to private individuals in an effort to evade judicial review.5 5 Texas has also relied on Muskrat’s statement that federal courts lack the power to issue a judgment “to settle the doubtful character of the legislation in question.” Appl.

8 is presently causing irreparable harm, the United States’ authority to seek and obtain a declara- tory judgment later is no substitute for the preliminary injunctive relief granted by the district court to safeguard constitutional rights and the supremacy of federal law now.

Alternatively, the Court could hold that the United States has authority to bring this suit and obtain effec- tive relief, vacate the stay, and remand to allow the Fifth Circuit to consider any other issues respondents might seek to raise in their appeals of the preliminary injunction.

(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 prac- tice; and (2) appropriate for the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the pregnant woman and her pregnancy.

11 While none of these cities provides abortions directly, their public health workers could be in the position of answering a patient’s questions about pregnancy options and about where to access abortion care.

28 Nonetheless, these increased 27 SB 8 does not appear to extend its aiding and abetting provisions extraterritorially.

Office of Refugee Resettlement: The declarant for ORR admitted that none of ORR’s contractors or grant- ees had expressed concerns about SB 8, that only two mi- nors “may or may not” have requested abortions re- cently, and that his ...

Texas’s judges and judicial personnel cannot be enjoined without violating our scheme of government, and none of the authority cited by the United States supports an injunction of a State’s entire judiciary.

First, it would not redress the alleged harm, as pri- vate citizens would nonetheless have non-executive means of enforcing SB 8 judgments under state law.

Its missions is to give innocent and helpless human beings of any age, particularly unborn children, a trained and committed defense against the threat of death, and to support their advocates in the nation’s courtrooms.

We litigate cases to protect human life, from preborn babies targeted by a billion-dollar abortion industry to the elderly, disabled, and medically vulnerable denied life-sustaining care.

Life Legal Defense Foundation sees in the present case an opportunity for this Court to right a 47-year-old wrong: the stripping from states of their authority to protect the lives of innocent human beings within their borders.

2 See, e.g., http://files.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/The- Rachael-Rollins-Policy-Memo.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2021) at C-3 (“When the item taken is recovered and returned, the individual appears to have substance use issues, mental health issues, and/ or the item is taken out of necessity (e.g. food, diapers, childcare-related items, etc.) due to a lack of employment or resources, the policy is for the ADA to presumptively decline the charge(s)”); https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL- DIRECTIVE-20-07.pdf (last visited October 27, 2021) (issuing a non-exhaustive list of misdemeanors to be “declined or dismissed” including public intoxication, drug possession, loitering to commit prostitution, and minors in possession of alcohol); Rather than exercising prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, these prosecutors publicly declare that they will not prosecute entire categories of conduct made criminal by the legislature and governor.

These pre-emptive exercises of prosecutorial “discretion” raise separation of powers questions,3 and have led to conflicts with the judiciary where judges attempt to rein in prosecutors.4 In light of this trend of prosecutors deciding which crimes to prosecute according to their own political leanings, and the declared intentions of four Texas district attorneys to ignore laws restricting abortion, the Texas Legislature’s decision to provide for civil remedies for violations of S.B.8 shows great foresight.

Nos. 21-463 & 21-588 In The Supreme Court of the United States

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jay Alan Sekulow, a member of the Bar of this Court and an attorney for amicus, pursuant to Rule 33.1(h), hereby certifies that the Amicus Brief of the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Respondents complies with the pertinent word limitations identified at Rule 33.1(g)(x).

According to the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare the document, the body of the document, including footnotes (but exclusive of all material preceding the Interest of Amicus and all material following the last word of the text of the Conclusion), contains 2805 words.

Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Respondents.

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I, Alan E. Schoenfeld, a member of the bar of this Court, certify that the accompanying Brief of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, and Planned Parenthood of The Rocky Mountains as Amici Curiae in Support of The United States of America contains 7,699 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

Executed on October 27, 2021.

Supreme Court of the Anited States

Petitioner, Respondents.

RULE 33.1(h) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner contains 6,373 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct.

Executed on October 27, 2021.

Texas Women Injured By Abortion Rhonda Arias, Mayela Banks, in memory of my child, Matthew; Nona Ellington, Myra Myers, Tracy Reyn- olds, in memory of my child, Debbie; Molly White, in memory of my children, William Conrad (Little Bill) and Josie Gayle; Maria Toribia C., Jennifer, Cassandra, Elena A., Leslie, Priscilla B., J.B., Nancy, Shaina, Lisa M., Laura, S.D., Grace E., Tracie E., Amanda, Brooke, Ashton F., Nina, J.B.F., P.E.G., Rita G., Shirley Lynn G., Tana H., Corie Ann H., Maricela I., Amy J., Karen J., Vanessa S.J., Alisa J., Eva J., Maureen, Sandra L., To- nya L., Janet L., Dawn M., Janet, Dee Ann M., L.M., M.O., Carol P., Karen P., Lillie P., Kimberly, S.R.L., Britany R., Ana, Sylvia R., Randa G.P., Cathy, Aleyda S., Theresa S., Kathy S., Tracy S., V.S., Therese S., Judy S., Lisa, Sylvia, Susie T., Misty T., Jennifer T., Davida T., L.T., Kelly V., Sonya W., Patricia W., Susan A.W., Rhonda S.W., Sheryl Y., Susan D., Sandra D., Lisa L., Meg V., Patti P., Wendy, Jessica H., Cari H., Esmeralda G., Kimberly R., Gail G., Jorea M.M., Ketra H., Sharra P., Vickie A., Maria, Andrea C., Katherine H., L.B., Keri, Angie, L.W., Summer C., B.L., Jolean, S.H., Kris- tin, Joanne, Loretta, Jessica K., D.J., Diana M., J.T., Betty T., M.H., R.T., Januari W., Linda S., Marga, Mary, Diana N., X.K., Suzanne, Carla H., Mary C., Amy, Da- lila A., Wanda G., Jeri H., Teresa C., Marion Lee M., Rebecca, Alison, Stephanie L., Mary G., P.T., Donna, Donna, B.B., Jackie, C.S., Valerie, J.W., J.R., Elizabeth U., Rhonda R., Carrie T., M.V., Melissa G., J.A., M.D., Amy S., Barbi F., N.C., Llana M., Kristina S., Kristi D.,

App. 2 Christina, Kay A., M.E., Rebecca K., L.C., Jeri, E.R., Thon, Aimee M., Jennifer, A.G., Danna D., Crystal D., Teresa, Sherre W., Jill, Elizabeth D., T. Antoinette W., Angela F., Julie D.B., Rolanda S., Rebecca, Katie, Ber- linda L., Renee S., L.S., Carol C., Jane H., Lisa S., Rande S., Lynne, T.C., Deanna S., P.W., K.B., Lisa A., Megan, Marian, Stacey, Victoria S., P.C., Katherine K., J.W., Anne, Linda A., Melanie M., Viola M., Lisa F., Margaret R., Amy, Kathryn, Crystal H., F.C., M.T., Lynn H., Bonnie H., Saundra D., Arcilla R., M.F., Lynne, A.B., Carrie, Kay D., Tammie, Stella T., Debra, Penny, Beatrice, Rosalie F., Janet C., K.D., Mary, Shel- ley, L.P., Celinda F., Nikki W., Laura, Debra, R.D., J.D., P.S., Kimberly, T.P., L.M., Thelma, Lisa C., R.S., Beth M., Kellie R., Nicole, Karen, Irene, Dian, Marsha H., Rhonda M., D.K., L.S., Gale P., Mary, Leella C., Betty D., M.M., Julie E., Laura, Dayna D., Sandra L., Sue L., P.O., K.H., Adrienne, Yvonne M., Cathy Y., Debra M., Lynn, Jennifer S., Dorinda H., J.E.D., Maria Teresa H., B.P., Mary Ann D., M.H., Myrna, Jill, Ruth M., J.D., Pa- tricia B., Sarah A., Terra W., Janet K., Sue R., Maureen, Mary C., Darlene J.D., Rochelle, K.R., Misty B., Sharon, Sharra P., Mary Lee M., Amy D., Cindy A., P.D., Rachel, Cami H., D.P., Claudia M., Lelar P., Karen, S.E., Kim M., Judy, Annette, Barbara A., Rosa, Lisa C., Betty M.R., Debby E., A.G., Jennifer M., K.M., Tina, K.F., Sandra H., R.V., Michelle M., R.W., Jennifer, Christine K., Tammy, Anna J., Marlene O., Ginny L., Cheli C., Dion R., Misty B., Lana S., Lynne, Paula L., Kandy, Norma Jean T., S.C., D.A., Becki, Ginger R., M.M., T.W., Charlotte H., Amanda F., Lisa, L.G., Penne L., Anissa N., Cindy M., Kathi H., Heen D., M.W., Linda, Mitzi A.,