Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Restore Alabama Abortion Law

June 28, 2019 by Dan McCue
Statue outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will not revive Alabama’s ban on second-trimester abortions, the justices announcing Friday they are content to have lower court orders blocking the law to remain in place.

Though Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall regularly calls the procedure a “dismemberment abortion,” courts have consistently blocked similar bans in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

In October 2017, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson found that the Alabama law would amount to a virtual ban on abortion in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

At the same time, he also struck down an Alabama law that would have prohibited the state from licensing or renewing the license of an abortion clinic within 2,000 feet of a K-8 public school.

“Because these laws clearly impose an impermissible burden on a woman’s ability to choose an abortion, they cannot stand,” Thompson wrote at time.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Thompson’s ruling blocking the abortion law, but two of the three judges on the panel said they voted to affirm only because they are bound by past Supreme Court decisions in support of abortion rights.

One of those judges, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, wrote, “in our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it.”

As is their custom, the justices did not explain their rationale for rejecting the case, but Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his displeasure in a concurring opinion.

“This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control,” he wrote.

“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” Thomas said. “But under the ‘undue burden’ standard adopted by this Court, a restriction on abortion—even one limited to prohibiting gruesome methods—is unconstitutional if “the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision ‘is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.’”

Thomas concluded: “Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard, we cannot continue blinking [at] the reality of what this Court has wrought.”

The case is Scott Harris, et al., v. West Alabama Women’s Center, et. al. No. 18-837.

Civil Rights

NAACP President: ‘We Are the Owners of This Government,’ Not Its Victims
Civil Rights
NAACP President: ‘We Are the Owners of This Government,’ Not Its Victims
November 11, 2020
by Kate Michael

WASHINGTON — Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of NAACP, was the special guest this week at the Meridian International Center, a non-partisan center for diplomacy and global leadership. He shared his perspective on recent general election results including their impact on the racial justice movement, black... Read More

Supreme Court Blocks Injured Officer's Suit Against Leader of Black Lives Matter Rally
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Blocks Injured Officer's Suit Against Leader of Black Lives Matter Rally

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an appeals court ruling by a panel of conservative judges that held an injured police officer could sue and win damages from the leader of a Black Lives Matter protest rally. The case had raised alarms among civil libertarians, who said it... Read More

Chicago 7 Prosecutor: 'They Were Going to Try to Destroy Our Trial. And They Did a Damn Good Job'
Civil Rights
Chicago 7 Prosecutor: 'They Were Going to Try to Destroy Our Trial. And They Did a Damn Good Job'

CHICAGO — Even five decades later, former federal prosecutor Dick Schultz has a pretty good idea of when the legendary Chicago 7 trial started to go off the rails: during the testimony of the very first witness. That day in September 1969, U.S. District Judge Julius Hoffman halted the trial after he was informed... Read More

Prosecutors Say They Won’t Enforce Anti-Abortion Laws as Protests Spread
Civil Rights
Prosecutors Say They Won’t Enforce Anti-Abortion Laws as Protests Spread
October 19, 2020
by Tom Ramstack

WASHINGTON -- A nationwide coalition of prosecutors is pledging not to enforce anti-abortion laws as protests spread against a Supreme Court nominee who is a staunch abortion opponent. They issued their “Joint Statement from Elected Prosecutors” last week during Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy... Read More

Supreme Court Refuses to Halt By-Mail Abortion Pills
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Refuses to Halt By-Mail Abortion Pills

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court let women, for now, keep obtaining abortion-inducing pills by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic, deferring action on a Trump administration request to reinstate a requirement that patients visit a medical facility. In an unsigned, one-paragraph order, the court said a... Read More

Act Restores Private Right to Sue on Discriminatory Educational Practices
Education
Act Restores Private Right to Sue on Discriminatory Educational Practices
September 17, 2020
by Sara Wilkerson

WASHINGTON - The House passed the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (EIEA), legislation on Wednesday that will restore students’ and parents’ right to hold schools accountable for racial discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EIEA was brought to the House... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top