The Supreme Court on Friday once again declined to block a Texas ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy but the justices agreed to hear two major challenges to the law on an expedited basis.
In a pair of unsigned orders, the court scheduled oral arguments in both for Nov. 1, a breakneck pace that underscored the significance of the cases. But it also declined a request by the Justice Department to temporarily block enforcement of the law, saying it would defer that request until the arguments.
The Texas law, which bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected in an embryo, has been blocked and upheld in a series of rulings that prompted congressional hearings and thrust abortion and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision back into the forefront of the nation’s culture wars.
The Supreme Court has been juggling two lawsuits over the law, including one from the Justice Department filed in September and another by abortion providers. A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court turned back the providers’ challenge in September, allowing the Texas law to remain in effect and prompting a backlash from abortion rights supporters.
Sotomayor: ‘open disregard’ of constitutional rights
While the court agreed to hear the two cases quickly, the moves Friday prompted criticism from Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asserted that the justices should have blocked the law temporarily while considering the cases.
“For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote on Friday. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”
Sotomayor wrote alone in her partial dissent.
The cases are focused on questions about who can sue and who may be sued over the Texas ban. They are therefore unlikely to resolve core questions about whether the state’s ban on most abortions is constitutional.
The Texas law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, includes no exception for rape or incest but permits the procedure for “medical emergencies.”
Opponents say the law flies in the face of the court’s abortion precedents, including the constitutional right to the procedure established by Roe. A 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey blocked states from banning abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb, or at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates say those decisions were wrongly decided and have sought to undermine – or even convince the high court to overrule – them.
Those groups may get their wish: With conservatives holding a 6-3 advantage on the Supreme Court for the first time in decades and a blockbuster challenge to a Mississippi ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy on the docket, advocates on both sides of the issue have questioned the court’s commitment to Roe.
The Mississippi case is scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 1 – a month after the high court hears arguments over the Texas ban.
“For nearly two months, we’ve seen the catastrophic impact of (the law) in Texas and beyond,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Patients who have the means have fled the state, traveling hundreds of miles to access basic care, and those without means have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will.”
Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive officer of Whole Woman’s Health, one of the providers that filed the suit, said the outcome “forces us to continue to turn our patients away.” She described providers in the state as being “hamstrung” by the fact that the law remains in effect but “encouraged” that the court will hear arguments.
Kimberlyn Schwartz with Texas Right to Life descried the orders as a “great development for the pro-life movement because the law will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day, and because the justices will actually discuss whether these lawsuits are even valid in the first place.”
Laura Echevarria with National Right to Life, said that the “impact of this law has been the lives saved,” adding that thousands of “children are alive because of (the Texas law) and we hope that there will many more lives saved as a result..”
Unusual enforcement
The Supreme Court’s earlier decision on the Texas law also dealt not with the underlying questions of constitutionality but with whether federal courts may block enforcement of the ban while lower courts hash out the case. Much of those legal machinations have been the result of the way Texas crafted the law.
Rather than having the state government enforce the ban, Texas incentivizes private citizens to sue anyone who helps a person get an abortion. That has had the practical effect of discouraging clinics from performing the procedure – out of fear of a lawsuit claiming a violation of the law – but making it harder for abortion rights groups to get an injunction blocking enforcement of the law before such a suit is brought.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, temporarily blocked the Texas law on Oct. 6, asserting that the state “deliberately circumvented the traditional process” and “drafted the law with the intent to preclude review by federal courts that have the obligation to safeguard the very rights the statute likely violates.” Texas appealed the decision a day later.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit stayed Pitman’s ruling last week, putting the law back into effect.
—
Original Article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/22/supreme-court-declines-block-texas-abortion-law-but-hear-cases/6119283001/
Discover more from Next Gen News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Constitution does not mention abortion at all, in any form, so there was no “Constitutional right” to abortion until the Supreme Court said so. In doing this, they took what should be a scientific and medical decision and made it political. I’ve written to my elected Congressional officials more than once, asking that they demand that the medical and science communities make an official decision as to when a separate life begins. Many states put the limit at 24 weeks, but I know two lovely young ladies who were both born before that limit, and both are doing well. Are our legislators willing to declare that they are not human, because they weren’t human at birth, but just a collection of random cells? I believe that life begins at first successful cell replication, and so far, have not yet encountered a doctor that will conclusively say I am wrong. They won’t say I’m right, but they admitted that I could be.
I totally agree with you! Actually I believe that Life begins with the “Spark” that made the fertilized human egg start to replicate — divide and grow! That SPARK is God’s WILL that created that life! This is totally about accepting there is a Divine presence that is controlling our lives — and blessing us with offspring — even when we think we can’t be a parent!
Here is the REAL ISSUE THAT HAS CREATED THE ABORTION INDUSTRY: males and females of our species refuse to accept responsibility for their sexual actions creating babies and then “destroying” them at will! That shows a complete lack of character happening in our young people resulting in a generation of self absorbed egotistical and immature individuals who think it is more important to use their bodies as toys instead of responsible adults! It is so disgusting and sad that their “creating” and then “destroying of LIFE” is done without a care in the world!
There would be no Planned Parenthood nor any other grisly abortion centers IF YOUNG PEOPLE WOULD STOP BEING IRRESPONSIBLE WITH THEIR SEXUAL ACTIONS!
If they want random sex, get a condom or take the pill — but PROTECT YOURSELF SO NO CHILD IS CONCEIVED! That is the bottom line — BE RESPONSIBLE AND NO LIFE WILL HAVE TO BE TORN FROM THE WOMB, dissected and sold to the highest bidder!
If America wants no more abortions TEACH YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY DURING SEX SO NO LIFE CAN BE CREATED! EDUCATION STARTS AT HOME BUT NEEDS TO BE REAFFIRMED THROUGH OUR SOCIETY AND SCHOOLS!
LASTLY, this radical IGNORANT GOVERNMENT CANNOT TELL ANY STATE WHAT THEy CAN OR CANNOT CREATE AS LAWS! That is stated in our U.S. Constitution! But with an incompetent and overstepping senile man in our White House, what do you expect? Biden, I guarantee, doesn’t know our Constitution and therefore says ignorant statements! He must be removed as fast as possible to protect our Nation and its people!
Truth is, a human life begins at conception. It is true scientifically and morally. Taking a human life as defined by humanity for ages is murder. There are so many ways to avoid conception available today, there is no reason to use murder as a means for birth control. This is the truth, anything else is a lie, pure and simple.
The Supreme Court holds OUR lives in their hands. Whatever decisions they make affects every single one of us. Now it appears that the Supreme Court has been bought. The Court is making decisions on their own feelings, not what is good for the country. If they are deciding on what they are either being threatened for or because the other side” pays them to decide with a little of their own feelings thrown in to control our citizens. They are now part of the Deep State and no one should ever trust any one of them again.
Abortion is cruel and morally indefensible. First, the woman has many options to prevent conception, prophylactics, I.U.D., birth control pills, and if necessary the morning-after pills. The very best method to prevent pregnancy is to just say NO! No unprotected sex. No screwing around. Subjecting the yet-to-be born to physical dismemberment (being torn apart while living) is reprehensible. Other methods include injections to induce convulsions by injections is also a horrible way to die. One abortion doctor states she cuts the baby’s vocal cords so that she is not subjected to the screams of that unfortunate infant. We don’t subject the condemned of our society to such cruelty and death. No, we worry that the condemned do not experience any discomfort. Should a person cause the death of a fetus by criminal activities, they are charged with murder. But a mother can order the death of her baby solely because it is inconvienient solely due to the mother’s actions having unprotected sex. How can anyone justify such an opinion? Yes, it is her body. Yes she can prevent pregnancy should she desire. There are many opotions available to her besides murdering her child.