AUSTIN - A largely overlooked sentence in last week's ruling about Texas' tough new abortion law could allow shuttered clinics across the state to reopen at least temporarily as soon as this week, officials have confirmed.

It is unclear how many closed facilities could take advantage of the opportunity, an unexpected bonus for abortion providers in a decision that also prevented further closures.

The likelihood of reopenings increased late Tuesday when an appeals court scheduled a hearing on the case for Sept. 12, keeping last week's ruling in place at least until then.

Two state regulatory agencies indicated in response to questions Tuesday that the sentence may prevent them from continuing to enforce a provision that has caused more than a dozen clinics to close. Both agencies said they were reviewing the ruling. One, the Texas Medical Board, said it was for now suspending discipline of doctors based on the provision.

The sentence in question is tucked toward the end of U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel's decision. It went almost entirely unnoticed when it came out last Friday, but lawyers on both sides now say the 31 words seem to block part of the law in a way unimagined even by the abortion providers who filed the case.

"The court further declares that the two portions of Texas Health and Safety Code, Sections 245.010(a) and 171.0031(a)(1), create an impermissible obstacle as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion," Yeakel wrote, seemingly casting his ruling as a blanket declaration of both sections as unconstitutional.

Only one challenged

The sections are both part of last summer's law, known as House Bill 2. But the providers only broadly challenged the first, which requires abortion facilities meet the standards of hospital-style surgical centers. On the second, which mandates abortion doctors get admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, they asked that clinics in McAllen and El Paso get an exemption.

Yeakel's apparent complete rejection of both stands out because he already tried to throw out the admitting privileges mandate and had his decision quickly overturned. Since surviving that legal challenge, the mandate has been in place for nearly a year and has caused mass clinic closures.

Matthew Steffey, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, described Yeakel's sentence as an unusual move "to push precedent as far as it will go."

Yet with the ruling binding - for now - providers said some of the clinics could soon reopen.

Attorney General Greg Abbott highlighted the sentence in a weekend motion asking the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the 5th Circuit to stay Yeakel's decision.

"Remarkably," Abbott wrote, "the district court not only enjoined the State from enforcing the admitting-privileges law against those two clinics, it included language that appears to be intended to (completely) invalidate the admitting-privileges law."

Abbott sought permission to immediately start enforcing the surgical center requirement and continue enforcing the admitting privileges requirement. But in a three-page order Tuesday, the appeals court instead scheduled arguments on the motion for next Friday in New Orleans. In theory, that leaves at least 10 days for clinics to try to reopen.

Fatimah Gifford, a spokeswoman for Whole Woman's Health, one of the abortion providers who brought the lawsuit, said the organization on Sunday reopened a McAllen clinic they closed in March when its doctor lost admitting privileges. The doctor could perform abortions there within days, she said.

More broadly, Gifford said Whole Woman's Health was looking into reopening clinics in Austin and Beaumont, both of which also closed this year due to the admitting privileges requirement.

"We have to wait until that interpretation is clear from our legal team," Gifford said.

An inability to get admitting privileges has caused the closure of several clinics run by other providers in Houston and other cities. There were 41 clinics before House Bill 2 passed.

Court attacks

Providers have attacked the law in the courts since then. This spring, after Yeakel's ruling against the admitting privileges mandate was overturned, they turned to the surgical center provision.

That provision drew most of the attention when Yeakel ruled last Friday. He said it would be so difficult for clinics to comply that many would close and Texas women seeking an abortion would face an unconstitutional burden.

The sentence tying together both provisions gained comparatively little attention and was the subject of confusion.

On Friday night, one lawyer for the coalition of lawyers said she thought it struck down the admitting privileges mandate statewide. Another said that would be impossible.

Finally, a coalition spokeswoman said the providers needed more time to review the ruling.

Spokespeople for the Texas Medical Board and Department of State Health Services adopted a similar line Tuesday.

"Our attorneys are still reviewing the judge's ruling," said Jarrett Schneider of the medical board, which has investigated complaints about admitting privileges. "Until further analysis, no disciplinary action will be taken."