High court takes abortion vote, but key tests still to come

  • In World/Asia
  • 2019-02-09 11:30:24Z
  • By Associated Press

Activists on both sides of the abortion debate are reacting cautiously to a 5-4 Supreme Court vote blocking Louisiana from enforcing new abortion regulations. They agree that the crucial tests of the court's stance are still to come.

Depending on the viewpoint, the vote represented a temporary victory or setback - but not proof as to how the court might deal with a slew of tough anti-abortion laws working their way through state legislatures and federal courts.

"We're elated - but not in the sense of uncorking the champagne," said Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Travis Tu, who has helped lead the fight against the Louisiana law. "We're elated in the sense of we just dodged a bullet."

NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, while relieved by the court's vote, said it "illustrates a sobering reminder: The thread that women's rights hang by is dangerously thin."

The law in question would require Louisiana abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's four liberals Thursday in putting the law on hold pending a full review of the case. President Donald Trump's two appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were among the four conservative justices who would have let the law take effect.

Activists on opposing sides voiced hope that the case will eventually return to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on the substance of the law.

"We will continue to do all that we legally can to protect Louisiana women and the unborn," said Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.

Benjamin Clapper of Louisiana Right to Life said he was not concerned by Roberts' break with the other conservative justices, suggesting the chief justice might eventually vote to let the law take effect.

"We don't see last night's decision necessarily as a setback," Clapper said. "It sets the stage for a full review that could go either way."

Beyond the Louisiana law - which resembles a Texas law struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016 - many other anti-abortion measures are being litigated in the courts or being considered in this year's legislative sessions. Many were designed to present a direct challenge to Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established a nationwide right to abortion.

In at least six states - Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee - efforts are underway to enact bills to outlaw abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Backers of these bills said they were undeterred by the Supreme Court's latest action.

"I'm not really concerned at this point what the court does," said Mississippi state Sen. Angela Hill. "I'm concerned about doing what Mississippi wants us to do."

Asked if the Supreme Court vote would have an impact on the "heartbeat" bill debate in Ohio, anti-abortion activist Janet Porter said, "None whatsoever."

Porter, author of the original legislation that's now spread to other states, noted the health challenges facing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and suggested that conservatives will have "yet another judge on the court by the time we get there."

She also questioned the notion that Roberts' vote with the court's liberal wing in the Louisiana case signaled that he'd side with them in future abortion cases.

Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis agreed.

"What Justice Roberts' action says to us is that he wants the whole thing briefed, he wants the opportunity to grill both sides," Gonidakis said.

Abortion rights supporters also expect Roberts to cast the critical swing vote in future abortion rulings.

"We know there are four justices who were willing to allow a law to take effect even though the Supreme Court struck down an identical law less than three years ago" said Jennifer Dalven, who heads the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project. "We don't know how that will play out with other laws. ... It's really a question of Chief Justice Roberts."

In addition to the "heartbeat" bills, several other anti-abortion measures have surfaced in multiple states, including two that National Right to Life executive director David O'Steen views as strong candidates to pass muster with the Roberts-led Supreme Court.

One type of measure would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain at that stage. Another set of bills seeks to ban a commonly used second trimester abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation, and referred to by abortion opponents as "dismemberment abortion."

O'Steen said Roberts "would have every reason" to support both of these measures if they came before the Supreme Court.

At the lone abortion clinic operating in New Orleans, nurse Vanessa Shields-Haas, who helps escort patients into the facility, said she was pleasantly surprised at the 5-4 vote to block the state law's implementation.

"The new makeup of the Supreme Court indicated that it was likely it would have gone through, which would have had devastating consequences," she said. "It's clear that this law is about ideology. It's not about safety."


Associated Press writers Kevin McGill and Stacey Plaisance in New Orleans; Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Mississippi; and Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.


More Related News

After Notre Dame fire, GoFundMe raised more than $1 million for burned black churches
After Notre Dame fire, GoFundMe raised more than $1 million for burned black churches

Prominent figures urged people not to forget to donate to the St. Landry Parish churches as money poured in for Notre Dame.

71-year-old Louisiana man arrested on 100 rape charges following complaint
71-year-old Louisiana man arrested on 100 rape charges following complaint

A Pineville man has been arrested on 100 counts of first-degree rape after allegations against him dating back decades were made to the Rapides Parish Sheriff's Office.

Stacey Abrams Equates Abortion Restrictions with
Stacey Abrams Equates Abortion Restrictions with 'Forced Pregnancy'

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams suggested in an interview on Monday that recent bills placing various restrictions on access to abortion should collectively be referred to as "forced-pregnancy bills.""There are a number of bills around the country that are limiting women's rights and access to abortion, and I wanted to ask you how can Democrats push back against these bills," asked Root host Terrell Starr in an interview published on Monday."I think Democrats have to first call these bills what they are, which are forced-pregnancy bills. But we also have to acknowledge that access to abortion is part of reproductive health and therefore it's part of reproductive...

Pete Buttigieg
Pete Buttigieg's Abortion Extremism Hurts His Religious Appeal

With every passing day, it seems we see yet another piece about South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg's progressive Christianity. His faith is going to shake the race. He's going to challenge the GOP monopoly on "God talk." Here, for example, is the opening paragraph of an NBC News analysis posted yesterday afternoon:> Religious conservatives who have long been a reliable voting bloc for Republicans are grappling with a new challenge in Pete Buttigieg: how to respond to a Democratic presidential candidate who is leaning into the discussion about faith and its role in political life.I'll agree that there are religious conservatives who are "grappling" with a challenge from Buttigieg, but that...

U.S. justices watch their language as they consider profane trademarks
U.S. justices watch their language as they consider profane trademarks
  • US
  • 2019-04-15 17:40:14Z

U.S. Supreme Court justices tiptoed around the offensive word at the center of a closely watched free speech case on Monday as they considered a challenge to a federal law that restricts trademarks on "immoral" and "scandalous" words and symbols. The nine justices heard about an hour of arguments in a case involving Los Angeles-based clothing designer Erik Brunetti's streetwear brand "FUCT," which sounds like a profanity but is spelled differently. The F-word word in question, which Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart called "the equivalent of the past participle form of the paradigmatic profane word in our culture," was not uttered openly in the famously decorous courtroom.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply


Top News: Asia

Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.