Bush-Appointed Judge Halts Law Banning Dumping Babies in Trash Over ‘Likely’ ‘Burden’ to Abortion

AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge appointed to the bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush has halted a Texas rule banning the disposal of aborted babies with medical waste, following legal criteria for an emergency injunction that requires judges to rule based on the “likelihood” that the complainant will succeed on the merits of the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks issued the injunction on Thursday during a hearing that was described as “testy.”

According to the Austin Statesman, Sparks became annoyed that the state would not grant his request to voluntarily halt the regulation until he issued a ruling, and issued an temporary restraining order himself.

“This is the first time the state of Texas has ever said it was going to go ahead [with implementing a regulation] when there’s a suit of substance before” a court, he said.

Sparks scheduled two days of oral argument for Jan. 3 and 4, and is expected to rule on a requested preliminary injunction on Jan. 6.

As previously reported, the rule, requested by Gov. Greg Abbott, was set to take effect on Monday after being finalized by the Texas health department.

“Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,” spokesperson Ciara Matthews said in a statement in July when the proposal was first announced. “For the unborn, the mothers and the hospital and clinic staff, the governor believes it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Abortion facilities customarily contract with third party medical waste companies to dispose of the aborted babies, which are usually classified as “pathological waste.” The containers of aborted babies, mixed in with boxes of bodily fluids, tissues and other items that are not permitted to be thrown in the trash, are then transported to an incineration plant where they are burned into ash and then dumped into landfills.

However, current Texas law also allows for other types of disposal, including “grinding and discharging to a sanitary sewer system,” “chlorine disinfection/maceration followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill” or other “approved alternate treatment process, provided that the process renders the item as unrecognizable, followed by deposition in a sanitary landfill.”

The new regulation would mandate that abortionists utilize burial or cremation services provided by funeral homes rather than hiring medical waste companies to dispose of the children with other medical trash.


Several abortion facilities filed suit on Monday to stop the rule from going into effect, including Whole Woman’s Health, Brookside Women’s Medical Center, Austin Women’s Health Center, Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services and others. As previously reported, the medical waste company Stericycle was fined $42,000 in 2011 for dumping fetal remains from Whole Woman’s Health with household and commercial trash.

The lawsuit was filed in part by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

“We are pleased that the court has prevented these outrageous restrictions from going into effect in Texas, where they would have created immediate and dangerous new barriers on women’s access to health care,” said attorney David Brown in a statement following Thursday’s hearing.

But Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed optimism over how the case would pan out in the long run.

“Texas has chosen to dignify the life of the unborn by requiring the humane disposition of fetal tissue. I am confident in the constitutionality of these rules and look forward to the court upholding their validity by Jan. 6,” he said.

Sparks had previously struck down a Texas rule requiring sonograms prior to abortions, but his ruling was overturned by the 5th Circuit Cout of Appeals. The upset judge complained about the appeals court’s actions, stating that their decision could lead to requiring abortionists to show “graphic images of aborted fetuses and heartfelt testimonials about the horrors of abortion …..under the rubric of reasonable regulation of medical practice.”

“The concept that the government may make puppets out of doctors, provided it does not step on their patients’ rights, is not one this court believes is consistent with the Constitution, in the abortion context or otherwise,” he wrote in 2012. “There can be little doubt that [the law] is an attempt by the Texas legislature to discourage women from exercising their constitutional rights by making it more difficult for caring and competent physicians to perform abortions.”

Sparks had been appointed to the bench in 1991 by George H.W. Bush.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • What the state of Texas really needs is more decaying human flesh in the waste system. What a judge. What a ruling.
    Trim their profits, pad their expenses, burden their administration, tie their lawyers in legal knots, let the guilty dispensers of death by the thousands see their deadly business die a death by 1000 cuts.

    • libertynottyranny

      Soilent Green – served Tx style.

      “However, current Texas law also allows for other types of disposal, including “grinding and discharging to a sanitary sewer system,””

      Makes you wonder if it’s making its way into the water supply – literally consuming our young. God will not judge this nation guiltless.

  • Oboehner

    This is why we needed to get Trump elected, so he can appoint some more conservative judges like all the rest.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What would a “more conservative judge” have ruled in this situation?

      • Oboehner

        If I have to answer that, you clearly wouldn’t understand.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Try me.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Judge Sparks is correct. This law serves no legitimate purpose and only exists to make abortion a more expensive procedure.

  • Webb ™

    The Bushes are godless liberals and globalists who posed as Christians and conservatives in order to be elected. The senior Bush and his wife Barbara have participated in homosexual weddings as official witnesses. Barbara and Laura condone abortion.

    • johndoe

      This has zero to do with the Bush family other than the judge was appointed by President Bush. None of the family had anything to do with the judges decision.

  • tatoo

    When I miscarried in the toilet, I called my doctor. He said, flush it down and come in. I did. What is the difference between that and putting it in the dumpster?

    • james blue

      Miscarried babies are excluded from the law. It isn’t about human dignity, it’s about being anti abortion.

  • james blue

    The only part government regulation should play is in regards to public health and safety issues. protection from disease spread and water contamination etc.