Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Restore Alabama Abortion Law
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.
In The News
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
WASHINGTON -- A congressional resolution that started Monday as a condemnation of hate crimes against Asians quickly turned into a dispute over who should be blamed for the devastation caused by coronavirus. Democrats blamed President Donald Trump for mishandling the U.S. response to the pandemic that... Read More
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Conference of Mayors and a coalition of leaders from smaller municipalities are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold protections against discrimination in the delivery of government services. The court is currently scheduled to hear the case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia... Read More
OAKLAND, Calif.– Four plaintiffs in a recently-filed California lawsuit allege they endured verbal harassment and discrimination by their supervisors at Mitsubishi Electric U.S., Inc. LeiRoi Bowie, Gabriel Ross, Lavell Roberson and Craig Martin, all plaintiffs in the suit, were consistently forced to do menial labor and... Read More
WASHINGTON — According to the American Conservation Society, conservatives are using the First Amendment to challenge progressive legislation. They assert that the Free Speech Clause is being used by corporate and right-wing interests to undermine progressive efforts in areas such as campaign finance reform, reproductive rights,... Read More
WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer laid out the chamber’s agenda for September, including marijuana legislation and anti-discrimination bills, but in a letter to colleagues Monday he acknowledged that there is no appropriations deal in sight as the end of the fiscal year approaches.... Read More