AUSTIN - A U.S. district judge on Wednesday criticized Texas' rule requiring the burial of embryonic and fetal tissue as "political" and without "any benefit at all" to public health before delaying his ruling in the case until late January.

Judge Sam Sparks extended a temporary restraining order blocking the new regulation until Jan. 27, putting off his decision on the controversial state rule that requires tissue from an aborted, miscarried or ectopic pregnancy to be cremated or buried without the woman's consent.

Sparks said it was "obvious" the new rule has no health benefit, following two days of testimony about the potential costs, ramifications and logistics of the new rule. "I don't think there's any argument about that."

The judge, who pointed to testimony and comments from the state's attorneys who stressed the rule change sought to ensure the dignity of the fetus, said he was most concerned about whether the rule posed an unreasonable restraint on access to abortion.

He said he plans to rule on the case the week of Jan. 23.

Requirements detailed

Spurred by a lawsuit filed against the state by health facilities and abortion clinics, the second day of the hearing offered a glimpse of what the rule requiring the cremation or burial of fetal tissue could entail.

Facilities that handle the tissue, such as abortion clinics, health centers and laboratories likely would need to buy additional freezers to store the remains for weeks or months before the tissue could be transported to a crematorium or cemetery.

State health officials envisioned Texas' abortion providers pooling their resources and burying the remains in a single, mass grave, according to Jennifer Sims, deputy commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Bulk burial would reduce the cost to less than $2 per abortion they said.

There were nearly 55,000 abortions performed in Texas in 2014, the latest year figures were available.

The executive director of the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops said its 15 dioceses across the state are willing to provide cemetery space and burials for fetal remains in wooden boxes, possibly stacked atop each other, in unmarked graves.

The services would be provided free of charge, executive director Jennifer Carr Allmon said, but health clinics would be responsible for transporting the remains to the cemetery or funeral home.

Politics vs. dignity

Also Wednesday, Patrick Carnes, director of the state's busiest crematorium, Cremate Texas in South Houston, testified that he hoped to contract with eight hospital organizations to cremate the remains and would like to see their ashes scattered in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sparks said he was convinced the state's fetal burial rule was political.

"I haven't heard any evidence otherwise," the judge said during the attorneys' closing arguments, pointing to the timing of the rule's publication.

The rule was drafted in the run-up to the U.S. Supreme Court's summer decision to strike down several provisions of the state's abortion law.

The proposed regulation was published in the little-read Texas Register four days after the high court's June ruling.The new rule was to go into effect last month.

State attorneys argued the decision was not political because the rule had been in the works for months prior to its posting. Instead, the state argued that limiting disposal of fetal tissue to cremation or burial ensures the dignity of the unborn.

Currently, embryonic and fetal tissue is disposed of the same way as medical waste: via a chemical disinfection, grinding, incineration or cremation and placement of the remains in a sanitary sewer, sanitary landfill or by burial.

Sparks' decision will rest on whether the new rule and the costs associated with it pose an unreasonable restraint on abortion, he said.

Health benefit rule

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June struck down two parts of Texas' 2013 abortion law, calling them unreasonable restraints on the procedure. The decision nullified provisions requiring abortion clinics to undergo costly renovations to adhere to the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated physicians obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

The Supreme Court ruling also declared that any new restrictions on abortion by the state must have a public health benefit, providing the grounds for abortion rights advocates to challenge the burial rule.

In the three years abortion providers fought the state in court, about half of the state's abortion clinics had closed, and none are set to reopen.

Abortion rights supporters say the new rule is a tool to further weaken access to abortion by driving up the costs associated with the procedure by requiring the cremation or burial of the remains, and by imposing the government's belief on women and shaming them.

"It's a choice that can be deeply disturbing for patients," said David Brown, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a national abortion rights advocacy group representing health care providers.