On Wednesday, the neo-conservative Supreme Court heard a generation’s most serious legal challenge to women’s abortion rights. Judging from the questions raised by the judges, it seems possible for most of them—even very likely—to vote whether or not to allow abortion and under what circumstances to allow it to be passed back to individual states.
The law under review is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationPassed by the state of Mississippi in 2018, it will ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This directly violates the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1973. Rowe v. Wade And in 1992 Family Planning Case in Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Which states that states cannot prohibit abortion until the fetus “lives”-usually thought to occur around 22 to 24 weeks.
In recent years, what the High Court has been asked to decide is not whether the state can completely prohibit the procedure, but whether state regulations will constitute an “excessive burden” on patients seeking abortion before it becomes feasible.For example, in 2007, in Gonzales v. Carhart, The court ruled that Congress can ban a specific abortion method called “partial birth abortion.”But in 2016, the court also ruled Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Texas requires abortion clinics to meet the same health standards as outpatient surgical facilities, and requires doctors performing abortions to have admission privileges, which is too much.
Since 1992, the court has never faced up to whether to retain roe with CaseyThe core point of view: There is a constitutional right to abortion before viability. But when accepting the Mississippi case last spring, the court specifically stated that it intends to resolve “all questions about whether the pre-injunction on the feasibility of selective abortion is unconstitutional.”
However, Mississippi’s Attorney General Scott Stewart did not spend time before the judge trying to persuade the court to only support the injunction in his state while preserving broader abortion rights.On the contrary, he advocates overthrowing both roe with Casey. roe, He said, “It was an extremely wrong decision that caused a huge mistake in our country, and will continue to do so…unless and until this court rejects it.”
People can never really judge what the justices will do from oral arguments, but Stewart’s comments seem to have the sympathy of six conservative justices. “Why should this court be the arbitrator, not Congress, the state legislature, and the people,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh asked. “Why is this not the correct answer?”
The person on the other side retorted. Julie Rikelman, the chief attorney of the last abortion clinic in Mississippi and the Center for Reproductive Rights, said: “A country’s control of a woman’s body… is a fundamental deprivation of her freedom.”
Rikelman was supported by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar, and she told the judge roe with Casey “This will be an unprecedented contraction of individual rights.”
Conservative judges also raised many questions about why fetal viability is the appropriate standard for setting abortion restrictions.
Stewart of Mississippi believes that feasibility “is not restricted by the Constitution. This is a typical political line.”
However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded quickly. “Apart from religious views, what other interests do you have?” she asked Stewart. “The question of when life begins has been arguing since the beginning.”
Prelogar specifically refuses to set deadlines for states to ban abortions other than viability. “I don’t think there is a more principled route than feasible,” she told Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Despite this, court observers said that the mere act of accepting the case indicates that the vast majority of conservative judges intend to overthrow or at least change roe In a main way.
“In order for the Supreme Court to accept this case and possibly uphold the law, the judges either have to say that Mississippi did so within its rights, because there is no right to choose abortion at all, or because the feasibility of the demarcation line is not felt,” Florida State University Law Professor Mary Ziegler (Mary Ziegler) in On November 23, KHN’s “What Health?” podcast. “So this means that, in essence, the court either has to overturn roe Totally or change something roe It means to stand on the side of Mississippi. Either of these two things will be a big deal. “
Actually should roe Was overthrown, more than half of the states may ban abortion almost immediately, according to Guttmacher Institute, A research group on abortion rights.Since when have nine states still banned these books roe It’s decided; more than a dozen states have enacted “trigger” laws that prohibit abortion if roe Decline; and several other states have various other prohibitions which have been passed but have not yet taken effect due to the following reasons roeThe presence.
This is exactly what the anti-abortion forces hope for. “Mississippi’s law, if supported, will bring us closer to what we should achieve,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, chairman of the Susan B. Anthony list, which provides funding for anti-abortion candidates for public office. “After so many years, this is an opportunity for the United States to retreat from the fringe of madness. Open page roeThe arduous chapters of the beginning of a more humane era-in this era, every child and every mother is safe under the protection of the law. “
Wednesday’s debate came one month after the court debated two cases involving Texas law. Known as SB 8, Abortion is prohibited after fetal heart activity can be detected around six weeks of pregnancy. Those argumentsHowever, the point is not whether the Texas ban is unconstitutional, but whether the abortion provider or the federal government can challenge it in court.
Last month’s controversy focused on an unusual mechanism designed to prevent federal courts from blocking the law. State officials have no role in ensuring compliance with the ban; instead, the law leaves law enforcement to the public and authorizes civil lawsuits not only against anyone who has an abortion, but also against anyone who “helps and abets” an abortion, which may include those who drive a car. They are people who send patients to abortion clinics or lawyers. Those who file a lawsuit and win will be guaranteed at least $10,000 in compensation.
The verdict in the Mississippi case is not expected to be made until the summer. However, the Texas decision may happen at any time because the law is currently in effect.
Caesars Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service.This is a program independent of editing Henry J. Caesar Family Foundation Not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Photo: tomloel, Getty Images
