Published: Sat, February 09, 2019
Worldwide | By Myra Stephens

This law professor explains the Supreme Court’s plan to kill abortion rights

This law professor explains the Supreme Court’s plan to kill abortion rights

"Remember, in the Hellerstedt case, Roberts joined with the other conservative justices to say that such regulations are totally within bounds, even under the Roe and Casey precedent of a right to an abortion".

If abortionists cannot, obtain admitting privileges, Kavanaugh continued, "even the State acknowledges that the law as applied might be deemed to impose an undue burden for purposes of Whole Woman's Health", and the abortionists could then bring a new case.

Brian Fallon, the director of Demand Justice, a liberal group that opposed the Kavanaugh nomination, said the group will launch a digital ad buy of more than $10,000 next week in ME to inform voters of how Collins' vote for Kavanaugh helped lead to the ruling Thursday.

Kavanaugh, writing for himself, said it was not clear whether doctors would be unable to obtain the admitting privileges were the law to go into effect.

"The Supreme Court has stepped in under the wire to protect the rights of Louisiana women", Northup said in. In a 5-4 vote, the chief justice, John Roberts, joined the court's liberal members to stop its implementation, in the case called June Medical Service v Gee. The Texas law also would have required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Pro-choice groups counter that the law will leave just one abortion provider in the state.

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.

The Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

"When lower courts issue injunctions against Supreme Court precedent, including decisions Roberts himself recently wrote, he has no problem taking a hands-off approach to those lower courts", he continued. It would have placed Roberts right alongside the justice who accused the Clintons of running a political hit campaign against his Supreme Court nomination once credible allegations of sexual assault against him surfaced. In rejecting it, the Court said that the law was not medically justified and constituted an "undue burden" on abortion access.

Somehow, from all of this, The Nation's headline writer concludes that "Brett Kavanaugh Is Already Done Pretending He Respects Abortion Rights" (subhed: "And Susan Collins is to blame").

"The law has not yet taken effect, so the case comes to us in the context of a pre-enforcement facial challenge", he noted, explaining that there could always be a later challenge if necessary when the law went into effect.

Trump, seeking re-election next year, has seized on the abortion issue, which appeals to his conservative base and evangelical Christian voters who are among his most ardent supporters. That decision, and the subsequent refusal to hear it en banc, is a flawless example of the courts going off on its own to advance a political agenda-in this case, an anti-choice one. He is, by most measures, a very conservative justice, but he seems determined to keep the court from moving too far right too fast and being perceived as just another forum for partisan politics in Washington.

And because the order isn't a decision on the merits of the Louisiana law, it's not a true test of Whole Woman's Health's strength as precedent. Kavanaugh didn't have to write this dissent.

Still, Kavanaugh could have said nothing, like the other three justices in the minority.

States on the other side of the divide are fighting back to preserve access to reproductive health care.

Thursday night's Louisiana ruling may have only delayed the coming upheaval.

There are few high-profile cases on the court's docket this year, seemingly by design, after Kavanaugh's tumultuous confirmation hearings.

Like this: