Texas' Abortion Law Is Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Thumbnail image for Vagina demagogues.jpg
The aftermath of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling last week reinstating the requirement that doctors performing abortions in Texas have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic was swift and sweeping. By the next morning, a third of the state's abortion clinics had closed or stopped performing the procedure.

That much was predictable. So was this morning's announcement by Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards.

"We're asking the Supreme Court to stop Texas' dangerous and extreme law from taking effect because your rights -- your very ability to make your own medical decisions -- should not depend on your ZIP code," she said in a news release.

See also: Texas' Abortion Restrictions Will Go Into Full Effect After All

Specifically, Planned Parenthood and its co-plaintiff, the Center for Reproductive Rights, have filed an emergency application asking the nation's highest court to stay the implementation of the Fifth Circuit's ruling. (Their other option was to appeal for an en banc hearing in front of the entire 5th Circuit, rather than the three-judge panel, but they apparently didn't like their chances.)

In order to prevail, Planned Parenthood and CRR will have to clear a couple of hurdles. Under Supreme Court rules, their application for emergency review has to go through Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch abortion opponent who oversees the 5th Circuit. Scalia can dismiss or otherwise act on it by himself, or he can refer it to the full court, though Planned Parenthood would be able to appeal a dismissal with a justice of their choice.

In order to grant a stay, there has to be a good chance that the court will agree to review the case, that a majority of justices will overturn the lower court's ruling, and that the appellant will be irreparably harmed if no stay is granted.

That first check box is all but guaranteed. As Guttmacher Institute policy analyst Elizabeth Nash told USA Today last week, the fact that the 5th Circuit allowed Texas' law to be implemented, which was not the case when similar measures were challenged in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Alabama and Mississippi, virtually guarantees it.

My Voice Nation Help
25 comments
ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

Pleas bring Anna back to write these.  I cant even rate them anymore, they are so bad

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

With the ancient, rotted-out, and senile right wing assholes on the Supreme Court ready to die soon, we finally will get rid of this "states' rights" horseshit once and for all and treat all American citizens equally.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Roe took care of this issue decades ago, but still the far-right troglodytes keep pushing their way into peoples' personal lives.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

In Maxwell Smart voice, "Just as I planned"

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

When are these repubs gonna quit tryin' to legislate morality and do something that matters?
Oh right, never.

Ardy
Ardy

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz The average age of the Justices on both sides of the political divide is almost identical - 68 on the right and 67 on the left. The highest likelihood of the next retirement is from the left, RBG.

MaxNoDifference
MaxNoDifference

@Myrna.Minkoff-KatzEven a fine upstanding Yankee like yourself knows better than to spout that nonsense south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."   That means that the States are allowed to to regulate any and all areas not co-opted by the Federal Government.  

That said, I still think that HB2 is a travesty on all Texans.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz These restrictions are the LAW OF THE LAND. Why are you trying to start a civil war, you seditious traitor terrorist?!?

pak152
pak152

and when will the far-left loonies stop telling the rest of us how to live our lives?

pak152
pak152

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katzand you forget or rather ignore Casey v Planned Parenthood which established that restrictions can be put in place

"In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), the Supreme Court affirmed the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade that the state is prohibited from banning most abortions. Casey also ruled, however, that states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/planned-parenthood-v-casey

pak152
pak152

@Montemalone and when are Democrats going to stop passing legislation and regulations that really tell people how to live their lives?

icowrich
icowrich

@Ardy @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz True, but it only takes one conservative to retire to flip the lean of the court.  If a liberal retires, little will change.

icowrich
icowrich

@MaxNoDifference But the 14th Amendment IS a part of the constitution, and it's the basis for Roe v. Wade.  That means it is not an area reserved to the states.

MaxNoDifference
MaxNoDifference

@icowrich @MaxNoDifference Your statement may be correct, but you misunderstand the meaning of my post.  I was commenting on Myrna's post about "State's Rights", not about the Tenth Amendment's application to HB 2 (which I agree that it should not apply).

pak152
pak152

@icowrich @pak152 so you like being told what health insurance to buy, what size soda to drink, etc?

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...