Casey decisions that have protected abortion for the last 50 years. However, Mississippi has asked the Court to completely overturn both the Roe v. The Court recently heard a challenge to Mississippi’s ban on abortion at 15 weeks in a case titled Dobbs v. Additionally, the bill does not punish women who obtain abortions.” What does this mean for the Court’s abortion jurisprudence? Rebecca Parma, a senior legislative associate with Texas Right to Life, notes, “No heartbeat law passed by another state has taken this strategy. Individuals who prevail in their lawsuit will be awarded “statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000.” The law takes a novel legal approach to limit abortion by tasking enforcement of the measure “exclusively through private civil actions.” Essentially, the law allows any private citizen to bring a civil lawsuit against any individual who “performs or induces” an abortion, or “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets” an abortion, including the payment for or reimbursing the costs for an abortion. While the Texas Heartbeat Act’s aim is similar to the other heartbeat bills, the enforcement mechanisms are different. ![]() What makes this different from other attempts to limit abortion?Ī number of states have introduced fetal heartbeat bills, but until now, they have been blocked by the courts. Of note, ERLC trustee Kelly Hancock, a state senator in Texas, was a primary sponsor of this legislation. Greg Abbott signed the legislation into law in May. The Texas Legislature passed SB 8, and Gov. There are no exceptions made for rape or incest, but there is an exemption made for “medical emergencies.” SB 8 bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which typically occurs anywhere between five and eight weeks into a pregnancy. The court ruled that the federal challenge of SB 8 “as improvidently granted,” meaning the court should not have initially accepted the case. The suit sought a “declaratory judgment that (the law) is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.” The suit sought to enjoin the “State of Texas, including its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties” who would bring a suit under SB 8. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the Department of Justice was filing suit in federal court against the state of Texas over SB 8. The opinion by Justice Gorsuch stresses “the ultimate merits question” of whether the Texas law is constitutional “is not before the Court.”Īt the same time, the Court also released its opinion in United States v Texas. ![]() ![]() Ultimately, the ruling means that for now SB 8 still stands, but abortion providers are now able to continue to challenge the law in the lower courts. ![]() Other defendants in the case, including Texas Medical licensing officials, are allowed to be sued. Last week, the court issued its opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson, concluding “that a pre-enforcement challenge to SB 8 under the Federal Constitution may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against certain of the named defendants but not others.” The ruling stated that some of the named defendants in the case, including specific judges and clerks, could not be sued for enforcing SB8 under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects government actors from being sued for carrying out their duties. Jackson, made its way back up to SCOTUS in the October docket, to determine if abortion providers may challenge the constitutionality of SB8. This challenge, known as Whole Woman’s Health v. SB 8, which prohibits physicians from “knowingly perform or induc an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child” unless a medical emergency prevents compliance, was allowed to go into effect in September, after SCOTUS declined to issue an injunction requested by abortion providers in Texas. Texas the court addressed the federal government’s separate challenge of SB8. In Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson, the court considered whether the petitioners (abortion providers) may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to SB8. Last week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued two rulings dealing with Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), or the Texas Heartbeat Act.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |