While abortion has long been the top issue on the Court’s agenda, guns and religion are quickly making it a secondary issue. Despite this, these cases have enormous implications for society. The most controversial cases the Court has yet to decide to involve affirmative action and the Texas “heartbeat” bill. Read on to learn more about the issues and what the Supreme Court is likely to decide.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
On Monday, a draft of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. While there are no clear legal implications of the draft, it is clear that all sides in the abortion debate are bracing for the ruling. According to the Supreme Court procedure, the justices hold preliminary votes after arguments and assign a majority member to write a draft opinion. They then amend the draft opinions as necessary.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that challenges the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ‘Gestational Age Act’. The law restricts abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, contrary to Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade. Previously, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization had won a lower court decision, but the state has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
The court will have to decide if this ruling is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court’s decision will have widespread consequences. The Mississippi laws that restrict abortion after the 16th week are unconstitutional, preventing women from seeking an abortion until the final two months of pregnancy. If the decision stands, women would have to travel long distances, struggle to find childcare and find transportation, and possibly even lose their jobs. In addition, Mississippi would have to make up for the time off work required to travel to the Jackson Women’s Health Clinic.
Unlike Roe and Casey, the Court may ultimately uphold Roe in Dobbs. Although this case isn’t as straightforward as Roe v. Wade, it can impact the outcome of abortion rights in the United States. In the end, it will depend on the arguments presented by both sides.
Texas “heartbeat bill”
Various states have passed similar bills in recent years, but the courts have consistently struck them down, saying that they violate the precedent set by Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court jurisprudence. However, the Texas “heartbeat bill” is a victory for the pro-life movement because it protects the lives of nearly 20,000 unborn babies who have a beating heart.
Although the bills don’t cite a specific gestational age for abortion, pro-life groups say they constitute a ban at six weeks of gestation. And since fetuses do not have fully developed hearts at that point, the law’s language is misleading.
The Supreme Court has already issued two rulings related to the Texas “heartbeat bill.” In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the court considered a challenge to SB8 by abortion providers before its implementation. In United States v. Texas, the court addressed a challenge from the federal government.
The Texas “heartbeat bill” will be subject to judicial review after these two cases are decided. The ruling will likely have a large impact on how state abortion laws are interpreted in the future.
The Heartbeat Bill also contains numerous provisions that restrict the ability of women to obtain abortions.
Texas “aids or abets” law
The Texas “aids or abets abortion law” is a new state law that allows anyone to sue those involved in abortion. The law does not require the person to have performed the abortion to be a resident of Texas. It also does not require the person to have committed a felony, although it would be a crime to assist in the act of abortion. The law does not apply to women who undergo abortions, but to those who provide them with assistance.
It allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids in an illegal abortion, and if they do it aggressively, they can win up to $10,000. It is difficult to challenge it on constitutional grounds, which means that abortion providers have tried to do so. While these legal challenges have failed, the Texas law has spread across the country.
However, the Texas “aids or abets'” abortion law is more limited than some may have expected. It prohibits abortions after a woman detects a fetal heartbeat. It also authorizes private civil suits against anyone who induces an abortion after the six-week mark. Further, the Texas “aids or abets'” abortion law provides a monetary penalty of $10,000 for successful plaintiffs.
While the new Texas abortion law is not in effect immediately, it has been unusually long and complex. If that is not enough, the losing party can also appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Finally, higher courts may issue a stay or an emergency injunction to prevent the implementation of the new law.
Kentucky 15-week abortion ban
A new bill passed by Kentucky lawmakers prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Supreme Court – Mississippi v. Hellersted, which argues that states cannot ban abortion before a viable fetus is present.
A ruling in favor of the state could weaken or overturn Roe if the majority of justices are conservative. A conservative majority on the high court could also gut Roe and restrict access to abortions nationwide. Regardless, the battle for abortion access will continue on a state-by-state basis. While the Supreme Court has not yet decided on this case, many women in the United States are encouraged to continue fighting for their rights.
The state attorney general can now appeal the decision, and if that fails, the state attorney general can take the case to the Supreme Court. But the decision is likely to leave the door open to politically-motivated and legally-unsound challenges. So, the Kentucky 15-week abortion ban has a long way to go. There are many more challenges to the ban in the future.
It also includes much-needed regulatory reforms, such as requiring abortion providers to report any violations to the state.
Texas “safe-haven” law
The recent passage of Texas “safe-haven” laws has brought the debate about their role in the proliferation of abortion. Some commenters wondered whether blue states could use private enforcement against abortions. However, the current judiciary is unlikely to favor private enforcement because it could lead to voter suppression and the policing of undocumented immigrants.
Despite the arguments of opponents, Barrett and Rikelman appeared to suggest that safe-haven laws would not be a good alternative to abortion. Barrett cited the example of her daughter Vivian, an undernourished 14-month-old, and her son, John Peter, who arrived in South Bend after the 2010 earthquake. Barrett did not mention that safe-haven laws would impede equal opportunity for women and would prevent them from working. They also did not mention that abortion guns and abortion women’s rights are under threat in childbirth and pregnancy.
Since the law went into effect, Texas has seen a dramatic decline in the number of abortions. Some providers have ceased providing abortions to women after six weeks. But many of them do not realize they are pregnant and must travel out of the state to get an abortion. Some doctors worry about the legal definition of a medical emergency exception. Some abortion providers even question the law’s purpose. However, this law has caused more confusion than it has solved.
While the Supreme Court sided with the Texas abortion provider, it is important to note that this law carries religious undertones. In Texas, SB 8 bans abortion within the state. It also places the responsibility of law enforcement on ordinary citizens.