The Supreme Court Just Blocked The Harshest Abortion Ban In The Country

[niyad]

The Supreme Court Just Blocked The Harshest Abortion Ban In The Country




Pro-abortion rights signs during the March for Life 2016, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Friday, Jan. 22, 2016


The Supreme Court won’t allow North Dakota to implement a law that criminalizes abortion after just six weeks — a point before many women even realize they’re pregnant — in a move that effectively blocks the harshest abortion ban in the country. Although North Dakota’s six-week ban was first passed in 2013, it has been prevented from taking effect ever since then. A lower court decision determined the law violates women’s constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. North Dakota officials appealed to the Supreme Court hoping for a reversal of that decision, but on Monday, the justices declined to take up the case.

The Supreme Court also recently turned away a similar case from Arkansas, where officials are seeking to implement a 12-week abortion ban, ensuring that law will remain blocked as well.

Both North Dakota’s and Arkansas’ abortion laws are known as “fetal heartbeat” bans. This legislation seeks to criminalize abortion after a fetal heartbeat can first be detected, though the two laws define different points in pregnancy because they rely on different kinds of ultrasound technology.

It makes sense that these states’ aggressive efforts to ban abortion have been unsuccessful in the courts. Under Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal up until the point of viability — generally understood to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy — and at least while Roe still stands, courts have been hesitant to dramatically narrow the available window for legal abortion services. Although some states are testing the bounds by enacting 20-week abortion bans, particularly blatant attempts to curtail Roe‘s protections represent a riskier strategy for abortion opponents.

. . . .


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/01/25/3742346/north-dakota-abortion-scotus/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&utm_term=3&utm_content=53&elq=69b84c15e80742c5883acfb6c60a0f37&elqCampaignId=4871&elqaid=28900&elqat=1&elqTrackId=c1b5336bb7464ed0bd96bf0cdeafe8a2

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. They finally got something right.

That ban would have been a nightmare for women seeking early abortions.

[niyad]

2. it is about time scotus did something right for women.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. No question there!

[iandhr]

4. Good news everyone

[Megahurtz]

5. Woo Hoo!

[niyad]

6. wouldn't get too excited, though. there is still the case in march.

[Gothmog]

7. This is great news

[niyad]

8. it is. there is still, however, the case in march.

[Gothmog]

10. I am following the Texas case on TRAP law closely

[niyad]

11. yes.

[Gothmog]

20. My county Democratic Lawyers Association had a briefing by PP legal team

This was back in November after the SCOTUS has stayed or enjoined the Texas TRAP law but before cert was granted. It was a great presentation.

[niyad]

9. . . .

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Even Better Than I Thought

They didn't even hear the case. Even this sitting court is accepting Roe as the law of the land. They basically said "nothing to see here."

That's even more powerful than actually hearing and deciding the case, IMO.

[niyad]

13. I hope that you are correct about this.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Well, I'm Only Hoping Too

But, not even taking the time to hear the case seems much more like a settled matter of law. If they hear a case, that would give at least the appearance that there is something to discuss.

Saying "see you later" to the case implies there is nothing to deliberate.

[former9thward]

17. No its not.

Last edited Tue Jan 26, 2016, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

A precedent is far more powerful. The SC only accepts about 1% of cases that are appealed to them. The reasons for not accepting a case can be all over the map.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Roe Is The Precedent

That's why they aren't hearing cases that are clearly contradictory.

[former9thward]

19. Roe has fallen to the wayside.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), and Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) have all chipped away at Roe. That is why the states have passed a multitude of laws which restrict abortion to one degree or another. Some of them have been struck down but many have been allowed.

[liberalfromaustin21]

15. Good! Screw the woman-hating pigs!

Men should NOT have a say on the decisions a woman wants to make regarding her own body. Period.

[niyad]

16. exactly,and welcome to du