The High Court will hear the proceedings in the new Texas law, but the results may not affect access to abortion.

The Supreme Court, which is believed to be ready to overturn the decades-old decision that a conservative majority guarantees the right to abortion, filed the first two abortion cases in the period 2021-22 on Monday. I heard it. However, the court was able to decide on the proceedings without deciding the fate of the abortion right in the United States.

At stake is the future of Texas law, which severely restricts procedures, and the High Court refused to block its entry into force in September. State law has cut the number of abortions in the state in half.

The Texas law, known as SB 8, is similar to the law passed in several states over the past few years in that it prohibits abortion after fetal heart activity is detected.It directly violates the Supreme Court’s case in the 1973s Roe v. Wade And the 1992s Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey’s Planned Parent-Child Relationship, It says the state cannot ban abortion until the “viability” of the fetal, which is about 22 to 24 weeks. The law is also no exception to pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

However, Texas law is different from other state “heartbeat” laws. This is because it has its own enforcement mechanism that does not give state officials the role of guaranteeing compliance with the ban. Rather, leave the execution to the general public by approving civil proceedings against those who “help and abort” the abortion, including those who take the patient to an abortion clinic or counsel, as well as those who perform the abortion. More and more they. The winner with the suit is guaranteed damages of at least $ 10,000. Opponents of the law are calling for “rewards” to encourage individuals to sue their neighbors.

Proponents of the law said state officials were not involved in the enforcement and therefore were not responsible for it, so it was specially designed to prevent federal courts from blocking the law.

It was the enforcement mechanism that the Supreme Court considered during the three-hour discussion on Monday. First case, Whole Woman’s Health et al. v.Jackson and others.., Second, brought by a group of abortion providers USA vs. Texas, etc..., According to the Department of Justice. The question before the judge was not whether the Texas ban was unconstitutional, but whether either the abortion provider or the federal government could challenge it in court.

Mark Harlon, a reproductive rights center representing abortion providers, said that if Texas law was upheld, it could have more impact than abortion. “Maintaining Texas’ plans will provide a roadmap for abolishing this court’s decision, which other states disagree with,” he told the judge.

US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogger expressed similar sentiment when she first appeared in court in that role, calling Texas law a “brave attack” on other government agencies. “We cannot freely sit on top of this court, invalidate the court’s decisions and their boundaries, and prevent the judicial review necessary to prove federal rights,” the state said.

However, Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone argued that neither proceeding should be allowed to continue and that any legal action should be dealt with by state courts. What both sets of plaintiffs want is “an injunction against the law itself. But federal courts do not ban state law. They ban civil servants.” Also, the law was created. Due to its own method, Texas authorities are not involved in enforcing the law.

At least a few members of the court’s conservative majority, especially Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, asked whether Texas could circumvent all federal court reviews, and that was a non-abortion issue. At least I was somewhat skeptical about what it meant. Some judges did not agree to the abortion position, but the group “used judicial review of restrictions on established constitutional rights, especially those protected in this court proceeding in Texas. It cannot be avoided in the way it is done. “

It was repeatedly pointed out by a liberal judge who revealed his opposition to Texas law. “In essence, we call on all 50 states to try to revoke the law set by this court on the content of their unfavorable constitutional rights,” Elena said.・ Judge Kagan said. .. “That was, no state dreamed of doing so until the law was enacted.”

The court has already shown a division into the law when it voted 5-4 in September to allow the law to come into force. Barrett and Kavanaugh made up the majority of the vote. The court also refused to block the law when it accepted the proceedings 10 days ago.

In such major cases, the decision is usually made at the end of the court’s term, which will be next spring or summer. However, the case was considered by the court’s “rocket docket” in the fastest review of the case since the judge decided who should become president in the 2000s. Bush v. Gore case..

Another thorny issue is that the court will hear discussions next month in another Mississippi case examining the future of abortion rights. In that case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Disagrees with the law that seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks of gestation. In that case, the court agreed to consider whether abortion could be banned before the state became viable.

The Texas proceedings may be decided before or after the Mississippi proceedings are heard. Alternatively, the case may be decided together.

Related topics

Contact us Send story tips

The High Court will hear the proceedings in the new Texas law, but the results may not affect access to abortion.

Source link The High Court will hear the proceedings in the new Texas law, but the results may not affect access to abortion.

Back to top button