Lifestyle

Supreme Court head keeps Texas women waiting for answers on abortion rights


That’s because, last week, the court announced that it would issue the first set of comments of the term on Monday. Abortion providers, lawyers, journalists and anyone who has followed the abortion war, believe that because the case is fast-tracked there is de facto confusion in the country’s second-largest state. , so comments are imminent.

Court watchers gathered virtually at 10 a.m. ET, preparing to download comments on Texas’ six-week abortion ban.

Instead, all they get is unanimous decision on the water rights dispute between Mississippi and Tennessee.
As a result, uncertainty will continue to reign in Texas, where doctors fear performing abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy for fear of draconian legal penalties, clinics in neighboring states Hospitals are always flooded with patients in Texas. Women without a vehicle – including victims of rape and incest who are not exempt from the law – were left with few options. Roe vs Wade, decided to be almost 50 years old Legalizing abortion across the country before it becomes viable, which can happen around the 24th week of pregnancy, continues to be a dead letter in Texas.
After oral debate on November 1, abortion rights advocates are given reason to hope, but are shocked that the courts have yet to act.

A majority of the judges, including conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed skepticism in the oral arguments. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan sometimes appears, derisively referring to the architects of the law as “some genius” who sought to circumvent the premise that “states must not be nullified.” constitutional rights of the federation.”

There was an urgent note in the air in the August chamber, an unspoken suggestion that soon a resolution to a case would come to national attention, placing the judges under the glare of the public eye. them and rekindled decades-old opposition to a woman’s right to abortion.

Inside the court: Three hours of history could decide the future of abortion rights

To be sure, the process of forming an opinion is arduous and often takes months. Judges write letters to resolve the immediate case, but also to educate lower courts about similar challenges in the future. In most cases, the draft comments are going through the chambers. Sometimes judges add their own notes or suggest language that might solicit their votes. A team of law secretaries checks each piece of the opinion to make sure it’s watertight. Occasionally – even late game – a justice will change his or her mind.

The Texas law, authorized by the court on April 5 to go into effect September 1 while the appeals process ends, prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected about six weeks – usually before a woman found out she was pregnant – and the complete opposite of Roe v. Wade. Judges are considering a new structure of the law that prohibits public officials from enforcing it.

Private citizens from any part of the country can bring civil action against anyone who assists a pregnant woman to seek an abortion in violation of the law. Critics say it was created to protect it from challenges in federal courts and from efforts by abortion providers and the government to sue the state and prevent abortions. perform.

Now, abortion rights advocates wonder whether the conventional wisdom behind oral arguments is wrong or whether judges are looking for a novel or unexpected way to handle the dispute.

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “The wheels of justice usually spin slowly, but we need the Judges to hit the gas here.”

“The cruelty and heartbreak our staff and patients endure will continue,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and chief executive officer of Whole Woman’s Health, which is behind the challenge. .

Hagstrom Miller says patients “deserve better than constant attacks on their reproductive autonomy” and clinic staff “show up day in and day out in a condition that none of us I think I will encounter” is suffering.

Hagstrom Miller knows that even if her side wins the Supreme Court and the service providers are allowed a court date to challenge the law, a different, potentially more consequential case will be appear. On December 1, judges will hear a case in which Mississippi directly asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Many believe that the Texas case will be resolved long before that dispute arises.

Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, hinted in a statement that the court may be willing to rule in her group’s favor if the delay so far.

“If the Supreme Court believes the Texas Heartbeat Act is as outrageous and unconstitutional as claimed by the abortion industry, it will likely want to act quickly, at least accept the law,” Schwartz said. temporary”. “Meanwhile, every day the Texas Heartbeat Act goes into effect is a victory because it saves about 75-100 babies from abortion every day,” she said.

Sean M. Marotta, an attorney at Hogan Lovells, tweeted about the Supreme Court’s inaction following the announcement of the water case on Monday.

Scotus once again proves ancient truth: Except on the last day of the Semester, anyone who says they know when a particular opinion is expressed is conjecture or lie.

.



Source link

news7h

News7h: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button