Click:HR Management system
Emboldened by a reconfigured U.S. Supreme Court, Republican-controlled legislatures in nearly a dozen states are currently considering “heartbeat bills” that would ban most abortions after six weeks of gestation, before many women realize they are pregnant. If allowed to stand, fetal heartbeat legislation would effectively ban a procedure that has been legal for more than 50 years.
Heartbeat legislation has been introduced this year in Maryland, Mississippi, Kentucky, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia and West Virginia.
With President Trump’s appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, abortion foes see their best chances in years to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in the United States, said Columbia Law School professor Carol Sanger, an expert on constitutional law and reproductive rights.
As a result, “a lot of states are feeling very gutsy” and are considering unconstitutional laws in the hope they will pave the way for a Supreme Court case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, Sanger said.
Let’s Talk About This: State lawmakers know fetal heatbeat bills are unconstitutional, yet they keep introducing them. What do you think about this? Comment here.
In Roe and subsequent cases, the justices held that states can’t ban abortions before a fetus is viable outside the womb. Original standards put that at around 28 weeks of pregnancy, but with the development of technology, fetuses may live outside the womb at 23 or 24 weeks of viability.
Similar heartbeat legislation by other states have failed in the past. Heartbeat bills either fail in committees or in legislative votes, are vetoed by governors (as former Ohio Gov. John Kasich did twice) or are struck down in the courts.
An Iowa state court judge dealt abortion foes their latest defeat, ruling on the 46th anniversary of Roe that what was the country’s most restrictive abortion law was unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. The judge tied it to a state Supreme Court decision the struck down another Iowa law requiring a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion, and leaving only a narrow path forward to the U.S. Supreme Court. Iowa’s Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said the decision wouldn’t be appealed.
The court has twice refused to hear heartbeat cases. In 2013, North Dakota was the first state to succeed in enacting a heartbeat bill. It was challenged in federal court, but the nation’s high court refused to take it. That same year, Arkansas passed a similar law, but the Supreme Court declined to hear it.
Still, the bills beat on.
“A lot of states are gunning for the honor of being the one whose case is taken by the Supreme Court,” Sanger said. “Heartbeat bills are really part of a pro-life strategy to get a case before the Supreme Court.”
As the thinking goes, Sanger said, even if the court finds a ban on abortions after a heartbeat is detected is unconstitutional under Roe, “is this an opportunity for rethinking the basic decision in Roe?”
Even with a conservative majority on the court, Florida State University Law School Professor Mary Ziegler, whose areas of specialization include the legal history of reproduction and the Constitution, doubts Chief Justice John Roberts is interested in taking on a heartbeat case, or any abortion case.
In a surprise move last month, Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s liberal wing in a 5-4 decision that blocked a Louisiana law that would have required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The vote put the law on hold pending a full review. Roberts offered no reason for his vote, but it signaled he was unwilling to disrupt a 2016 precedent that struck down a similar law in Texas.
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted to allow the law to take effect.
Ziegler said Roberts “has concerns about the legitimacy of the court and the ability to stay above the partisan fray that would make the court look political in a way that he doesn’t want.”
“Justice Roberts doesn’t want to take it on,” Sanger agreed. “He’s a conservative, but a moderate conservative. … To be chief justice, if you are a constitutional lawyer, you have died and gone to heaven. He doesn’t want the Roberts Court to be known as the court that overturned Roe.”
The bigger threats to abortion rights are the incremental changes states have made since Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992. The Supreme Court didn’t overturn Roe, as some abortion foes had hoped, but it was a seminal case that said states have an interest in potential life and can impose regulations on abortions from the moment of conception.
Abortion laws wending through state legislatures send a “complicated message” to people on both sides of the contentious issue, Ziegler said.
“If you’re pro-choice, you have to be vigilant about things that don’t look like obvious sweeping changes,” she said. “It’s more likely that you’ll see more slow, complicated, hard-to-process attacks on legal abortion — fetal pain laws, bans on abortion at or after the 20th week, beefed up mandatory counseling laws involving ultrasound, and laws that ban dilation and evacuation, the most common procedure after the first trimester.”
At least 26 states have passed laws that require a woman to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
For abortion foes, the message is that “even with a reconfigured Supreme Court and a sympathetic president in the White House, the court is interested in preserving its reputation of being non-partisan,” Ziegler said.
Click Here: Cardiff Blues Store