- Advertisement -spot_img
Wednesday, October 5, 2022

The Supreme Court allows an appeal of the Texas abortion law, but upholds it

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday allowed an appeal against a Texas law banning most abortions in the state, and six weeks later, despite procedural barriers imposed by state abortion providers, some state officials filed a lawsuit in federal court. decided that he could. the unusual structure of the law.

But the Supreme Court, meanwhile, refused to block the law and said the lower courts should consider the matter.

The incident was both a victory and a disappointment for abortion rights advocates, who hoped judges would reverse the Sept. 1 ruling that allowed the law to take effect, leading to restrictions on the right of abortions in state clinics. the procedure and forcing many women who want to have an abortion to leave the state.

The Texas case court ruled in 1973 against Roe and Wade in a direct appeal against the right to abortion, 15 weeks after Mississippi law banned most abortions. accepted on the case. Roe states states that fetal viability prohibits abortion during the period when the fetus can continue to live outside the uterus, or before 23-24 weeks of gestation.

The conservative majority of the six members of the court was willing to support Mississippi law, and several judges indicated they would vote to overturn Roni directly. A decision on the case is not expected until the end of June.

Texas law violates Ron’s life line by banning abortion once the fetal heart activity is usually detected within about 6 weeks.

The problems with Texas law are not about the constitutionality of the law, but about whether the law can be challenged in court by state abortion providers or the federal government. The cases allowed the court to reconsider its earlier decision, which could have come into force before the courts challenged its constitutionality or resolved the question of how it could be challenged.

Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, has unusual features.

Typically, a lawsuit seeking to block it because the law is unconstitutional could present public officials as defendants. However, Texas law does not preclude pregnancies resulting from incest or rape between relatives, prohibits state officials from using it, and instead allows private individuals to sue anyone who has performed or “assisted” the treatment. deputies do.

The patient may not be prosecuted, but doctors, clinic staff, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure or take them to it are potential defendants. Plaintiffs who do not have to live in Texas, have nothing to do with abortion, or have not suffered any injuries from it are eligible to receive $ 10,000, and if they win, their legal fees will be charged. Defendants who are in control are not entitled to legal fees.

The court’s previous meeting with the law split the judges sharply in two, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts joining three other liberal members of the junior court.

The majority opinion, published until midnight on September 1, was unsigned and consisted of a single long paragraph. It said abortion providers who objected to the law in the emergency application did not state their case in the face of “complex and new” procedural questions. Many argued that this was not a decision on the constitutionality of Texas law and did not mean limiting it to “procedurally appropriate difficulties”.

Each of the special judges expressed his or her opinion in the previous decision.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, for example, wrote, “The court’s decision is astonishing.” “Most of the judges who filed a petition seeking an overtly unconstitutional law designed to prohibit the exercise of women’s constitutional rights and avoid judicial review preferred to bury their heads in the sand.”

“The court commended the state’s efforts to delay the federal review of the constitution, which was clearly unconstitutional, passed without regard to court precedents, through procedural confusion created by the state itself,” Judge Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be content to ignore not only women’s rights, but also its constitutional obligations to protect its precedents and the rule of law.”

The case was returned to the Supreme Court in two different directions. After the court rejected the providers ’request for emergency assistance, the Department of Justice filed its own objection to the law, saying it was not due to procedural barriers faced by the providers. The case soon reached the Supreme Court with an urgent application.

Abortion providers also returned to the court, asking judges to use an unusual procedure – the “pre-sentence certiorari” – to appeal to the appellate court and decide whether they have the right to sue.

The Supreme Court agreed to settle both cases on Oct. 22 and subsequently set up an emergency expedition. Only 10 days later, on November 1, he drew attention to the question of whether providers and the government had the right to sue, given the unusual structure of the law.

In these debates, two members of the original majority, Judges Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett, asked questions that may have changed their minds about the law.

World Nation News Desk
World Nation News Deskhttps://worldnationnews.com/
World Nation News is a digital news portal website. Which provides important and latest breaking news updates to our audience in an effective and efficient ways, like world’s top stories, entertainment, sports, technology and much more news.
Latest news
Related news
- Advertisement -


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here