Earlier in the week, the judges lifted a temporary stay issued by a district court judge who found the new law potentially unconstitutional, but didn't issue a legal mandate making the law enforceable.

Texas' new law requires that at least 24 hours before an abortion is scheduled, a physician must conduct a sonogram, show the woman the image, play the fetal heartbeat aloud and describe the features of the fetus.

There are exceptions in the case of rape, incest, fetal deformities and for women who must travel great distances to reach a doctor.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order means doctors fighting the law can't appeal the decision Tuesday by Chief Judge Edith Jones before it goes into effect. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't have taken effect until Jan. 31.

That clears the way for the Texas Department of State Health Services to issue rules for complying with the law and to prosecute doctors who don't obey it.

A State Health Services spokeswoman said agency officials are developing a schedule for enforcing the law as soon as possible.

"Given today's order, we are moving forward with legal guidance from the attorney general's office," said Carrie Williams, an agency spokeswoman. "We're working toward full implementation, and we are moving quickly to comply with the order. We've been preparing for this since the legislation passed during the last session."

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports the doctors' lawsuit against the state, complained it wasn't given a chance to respond to Jones' order Tuesday or the attorney general's request for an immediate mandate.

"There is no justification for Texas to have insisted on the immediate enforcement of this intrusive and demeaning law, nor the court of appeals to have granted it without giving us an opportunity to be heard," said Nancy Northup, president of the center. "Texas reproductive health providers and the women they serve deserve to be treated the same as anyone else seeking a fair hearing from our courts."

The appeals court's opinion issued Tuesday disagreed with District Court Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, who's hearing arguments next week on the overall constitutionality of the state specifying how a doctor will talk to his or her patients.