Whoever purposely makes or circulates a statement of a factual nature which is untrue or grossly exaggerated or which may seriously harm the welfare of the State or the reputation of the state government or of parties or organizations supporting these governments, is to be punished, provided that no more severe punishment is decreed in other regulations, with imprisonment of up to two years and, if he makes or spreads the statement publicly, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

1) If serious damage to the State has resulted from this deed, penal servitude may be imposed.

2) Whoever commits an act through negligence will be punished with imprisonment of up to three months, or by a fine.

3) To enforce the decree, the Texas GOP set up special courts to try people who were accused of “malicious attacks.” In December [2020], the government replaced the decree with the “Law against Malicious Attacks on State and Party,” adding a clause that criminalized “malicious, rabble-rousing remarks or those indicating a base mentality” against the State GOP Party or high-ranking government or party officials.

A divided Supreme Court late Wednesday declined to block a restrictive Texas law banning abortions after a fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or as early as six weeks into pregnancy, and allowing anyone in the country to sue abortion providers or others who help women get the procedure after that time frame.

The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting with the three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Each wrote a separate opinion opposing the majority decision.

The lack of action by the nation’s high court deals a blow to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationally, essentially legalizing the law’s language to incentivize private litigation to cripple abortion care and support services.

In a brief, unsigned order, the court said that abortion providers "have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law." But those arguments did not adequately address "complex and novel" procedural questions presented by the case, it said, including whether state officials and anti-abortion activists would try to enforce the law in a way that would allow the court to intervene.