Skip to comments.Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Arkansas abortion law.....(WINNING)
Posted on 05/29/2018 12:29:26 PM PDT by caww
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from Planned Parenthood to hear a challenge to an Arkansas abortion law that pro-abortion activists say would force two of the state's three abortion clinics to close.
The justices denied the request from Planned Parenthood Great Plains to review a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts order paves the way for the Arkansas law to take effect.
The Arkansas law, passed in 2015, requires physicians who conduct medication abortions to have a contract with a doctor with hospital admitting privileges. Medication abortions involve taking a first pill, mifepristone, at the clinic, and then a second pill, misoprostol, up to 48 hours later, typically at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
This overstates the decision a bit. The trial court issued an injunction prohibiting the law from taking effect which the court case over its constitutionality was decided. The court of appeals struck down the injunction and sent the rest back to trial court to be resolved. The USSC merely refused to reinstate or relitigate the injunction issue. The rest of the case will proceed and the law could still be found unconstitutional. But, I guess you’ve got to cheer every little win when you get them.
Actually, winning would be ruling and overturning the lower court’s ruling.
Since probably most public schools arent teaching the 10th Amendment like they should be, the Supreme Court should be required to publicly note 10th Amendment-protected state power issues when applicable.
It takes 3 years for these types of laws to go into effect, and only 3 days for the opposite type of laws to be enforced
<> If that’s not an undue burden, what is? <>
Just for the sake of clarity, scotus made up classes of rights. Abortion and Voting are among “fundamental” rights.
The right to life itself is a “liberty interest.”
When a law that impacts fundamental rights is challenged, the federal court assumes the law is unconstitutional and the state must defend why it passed the law. With the words, “arbitrary and capricious” or “undue burden,” a lower court can dismiss the typically long and arduous state legislative process.
This bodes well, I think for a case in Baltimore. The City of Baltimore requires women’s care centers (real ones, not abortion mills) to give information on how to have an abortion.
A large center has won the case against the city and won the appeal. Of course, that’s not good enough. The ghouls in City government are appealing to SCOTUS.
I know a couple of the defense attorney’s. If SCOTUS takes the case, Baltimore ain’t gonna know what hit them.
I presume SCOTUS will do the same thing and deny the case, allowing the appeal loss to the city to stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.