Ava Stevenson, left 20 in Montgomery County, Maryland, will meet outside the Supreme Court on Monday, November 1, 2021 with her mother, Jenni Coopersmith, for the right to abortion, and discussions about court abortion will begin. .. , Located in Capitol Hill, Washington. (AP photo / Jacquelyn Martin)
Washington (AP) —A majority of Supreme Court signals on Monday to allow abortion donors to challenge court against Texas law, which virtually ended abortion in the second largest state in the United States six weeks after pregnancy. Did.
However, it was unclear how quickly the court would decide and issue an order to block the law that had been in force for two months, or to require the provider to ask the lower court to hold the law.
Two conservative judges, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, voted in September to allow the law to come into force, but asked questions about its new structure on Monday. The law was created to make legal objections difficult and imposes heavy fines on clinics and doctors who promote abortion.
“There are loopholes that have been abused or used here,” Kavanaugh said, explaining that the court’s question was whether to “close the loophole.” Kavanaugh suggested that the “principles” and “whole sweep” of the 1908 Supreme Court proceedings “arguably propose to extend the principles here and close the loopholes.”
The judge heard a three-hour debate on Monday as to whether the abortion provider or the Department of Justice could impose a federal court objection on the law.
The Biden administration filed a proceeding after the judge voted 5-4 and refused the provider’s request to the law. Three other conservative judges joined Barrett and Kavanaugh in a majority to enforce the law. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has challenged and joined the court’s three liberal judges.
Judges seem less confident that the Justice Department’s proceedings should proceed, and Judge Elena Kagan instead makes the court a difficult issue of federal power, with a ruling in favor of the provider. Suggested that it would be possible to avoid.
In either case, Monday is not the right to abortion in question. However, the motive of the proceedings is that Texas law contradicts a groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling that prevents the state from banning abortion early in pregnancy.
US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogger told judges that Texas law was enacted in a “public rebellion” of Supreme Court case law, alleging the United States. “It has enacted a law that clearly violates the court’s case,” she said.
Under the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 planned parent-child relationship vs. Casey decision, the state survives about 24 weeks of gestation, when the foetation can survive outside the womb. It is forbidden to ban abortion before.
In a proceeding over Mississippi’s ban on abortion 15 weeks later, judges will hear another objection to these decisions. Those discussions are set for December 1st.
Cagan insisted on Texas and told Judd E. Stone II that “no country dreamed” of trying to end the Supreme Court’s case in the same way until Texas passed the bill. Told.
She said that if the Supreme Court did nothing about it, trying to ignore the precedent would invite the state. Same-sex marriage. Religious rights. Whatever you don’t like: please, “she said. Mr. Cagan, who disagreed with his colleague’s decision to enforce the law, said Texas law prevented Texas women from “exercising their constitutional rights.”
Kavanaugh also expressed concern about laws that could affect other constitutional rights.
Texas law has been in force since September, when the Supreme Court refused to intervene, except for the 48-hour period in early October, which was blocked by lower courts. The High Court was re-engaged in less than two weeks and moved at an extraordinary speed. The court did not provide an explanation for the decision to hear the case so quickly.
Even if the court allows the provider to continue the proceedings, the law must be put on hold by a separate order from the judge or lower court.
A Texas ban, signed by Governor Greg Abbott in May, bans abortions, usually about six weeks after the detection of heart activity in the foetation, before some women know they are pregnant. doing.
The law makes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for rape or incest.
At least 12 other states have enacted bans early in pregnancy, but all have been blocked from entering into force.
Texas is acting on behalf of civilians to sue those who carry out, assist, or have an abortion, rather than having state officials enforce the law. If the litigants succeed, they are entitled to at least $ 10,000. Women who have had an abortion will not be sued under the law.
In a discussion on Monday, Roberts at one point asked if Texas could qualify much higher, $ 1 million, to challenge the law. A Texas lawyer said no to him.
The structure of the law threatens to impose huge fines if the abortion provider violates it. When cardiac activity was found, state-wide clinics stopped performing abortions.
As a result, both the donor and the Biden administration have traveled to other states for economically competent women, and women without means continue to become pregnant against their will or have other potential. He said he needed to find a dangerous way to end them.
Law architects Stone and Jonathan Mitchell, who also claimed on Monday, are state judges and secretaries who are not responsible for enforcing the abortion ban, as both the provider and the Justice Department lack the right to enter federal court. He said he could not sue the official. They also said there was no effective way to block the law, as federal courts could not force state judges to refrain from proceedings that the law allows.
Note: This story will be updated in the video.
Supreme Court asks Texas law banning most abortions | Chicago News
Source link Supreme Court asks Texas law banning most abortions | Chicago News
The post Supreme Court asks Texas law banning most abortions | Chicago News appeared first on Illinois News Today.
No comments:
Post a Comment