Reprinted from Baptist Press (www.baptistpress.com), news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. These votes are the ultimate proof that the non-Roberts conservatives view the Supreme Court as a political body, and adhering to legal precedent comes secondary to enforcing the conservative view of the law.
Last month, New York, fearing that the U.S. Supreme Court might soon overturn Roe, passed the Reproductive Health Act, which brings New York's abortion law into line with the guidelines established by Roe.
In the Louisiana case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the state law is substantively different from the Texas measure and should be upheld because it does not "impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women" in the state. The cases in that December 10 action did not address abortion directly but involved whether Medicaid recipients could challenge a state's decision on who qualifies as a provider in the government program that helps with health care expenses. "The Supreme Court rightfully refused to uphold a brazen and unconstitutional attempt to ignore identical cases that are meant to shutter abortion clinics in the state, making Roe v. Wade obsolete".
Landry said that his office "will not waver" in defense of the law and will "continue to do all that we legally can to protect Louisiana women and the unborn".
Late Thursday, the Supreme Court granted that stay by a 5-4 vote.
"If the Court grants the stay, pro-life advocates should be gravely concerned", French wrote February 5. Notably, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was considered to be a moderate swing vote, has retired.Читайте также: Millions of Girls at Risk of Genital Mutilation
In a 5-4 decision, the Court temporarily blocked a 2014 Louisiana law that, by instituting a strict hospital admitting privileges system, would have left the state with just one doctor allowed to perform abortions. While a federal judge struck down the law, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision in a 2-1 ruling in September.
While Thursday's decision may ultimately amount to merely a temporary delay, the Court's decision at this point should have been a no-brainer. It presented a statute that we all knew was unconstitutional, and asked SCOTUS to rule in favor of the law simply because lots of people really, really oppose abortion.
Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's two high-court appointees, are among six Trump-nominated judges who voted to let the law take effect, a sign that the president is carrying through on a campaign pledge to put abortion-rights opponents on the bench. The practical effect would be to reduce the number of abortion providers in Louisiana.
Louisiana has only three clinics with a total of four doctors who perform abortions, only one of whom has hospital admitting privileges. Maybe the four abortion docs in the state could just get admitting privileges and the whole thing would be NBD for women seeking abortions.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who served as the national Democratic Party chairman after losing a 2004 bid for president, said on Twitter that Collins will have to defend her vote for Kavanaugh next year if she runs for re-election "because it's likely Roe will not exist" any longer.
Still, Kavanaugh could have said nothing, like the other three justices in the minority. The divergence between the findings of the district court and the majority is striking-a dissonance in findings of fact inexplicable to these eyes as I had not thought that abortion cases were an exception to the coda that appellate judges are not the triers of fact. Attorneys representing abortionists appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2019 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.
Код для вставки в блог