Today, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Mississippi’s ban against abortions within 15 weeks gestation would be upheld. This would mean that long-standing precedents which stated the Constitution doesn’t allow states to prevent abortions prior to viability (the point when a fetus is able to survive without the mother) must be overturned or revised. The law in Mississippi was upheld by at least five of the justices. They may also rule that it does not provide protection for a right.
In the meantime, oral arguments are in Dobbs against Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationWe already knew six of the current justices were either very likely or extremely skeptical of our views. Roe V. WadeThe 1973 Supreme Court decision that women had a right under the 14th Amendment to have an abortion was cited. Casey v. Planned ParenthoodThe 1992 decision, which reaffirmed the principle of equal opportunity in all areas. Roe“The State’s first constitutionally sufficient interest in the welfare of fetal life to warrant a ban on all non-therapeutic abortions is at the point when viability, according to the “central holding”, was established. They were not prepared to abandon both decisions. However, the Court must consider other factors when deciding whether or not to reverse a precedent. Clarence Thomas was the only member of the Court to declare it should be overturned. RoeHe first expressed this view by joining the dissidents in Casey.
Oral arguments were dominated by the question of whether or not the Court could substitute the highly criticized viability rule for a more practical and principled dividing line. However, Chief Justice John Roberts was the only one who seemed open to this possibility. Mississippi has been urging the Court not to reverse its decision. RoeAnd Casey, he said, “what we have before us…is a 15-week standard.” If the issue is that “women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy,” he said, “that supposes that there is a point at which they’ve had the…opportunity to [choose]Why would 15 weeks seem like an incongruous line?
Jackson Women’s Health Organization (the abortion clinic in Mississippi that is challenging Mississippi’s law) cast doubts about the viability rules’ effectiveness. According to its Supreme Court brief, “There is no compromise here.” “Each one of the state’s alleged alternatives would upset the balance.” Casey“The woman’s right to choose whether or not to have her child to term would be revoked.’…Upholding the Ban under either ‘alternative’ rationale the State offers would lead to the same thing: attempts by half the states in the Nation to forbid abortion entirely, and a judiciary left without tools to manage the resulting litigation.”
Justice Samuel Alito agreed with Thomas about “the Constitution doesn’t protect a right abortion” and expressed his disgust for the “arbitrary viability” rule. He then focused on the passage in the clinic’s brief, while questioning Julie Rikelman (center for reproductive rights litigation director). Your brief [says]Reaffirmation is the only option we really have. RoeAnd CaseyHe noted that they can be left as is or overruled in full. You say, “There are no half measures here.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the U.S. if the Court would reject the viability rule. Elizabeth Prelogar (Solicitor General): “Did you notice any other intelligent principle the Court could pick?” She answered that she didn’t. She stated that she didn’t believe there was a line more principled or viable than the one I have. I believe the Court must consider the following factors: what is consistent with precedent; what is clear and practical and what preserves the fundamental components of liberty interest. Viability is a good choice because it checks all the boxes. [of]”Being a Rule of Law for 50 Years.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh listed a number of precedents that have been overturned by the Court, suggesting that time shouldn’t protect decisions that majority justices view now as “egregiously incorrect.” This is exactly how Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart describes it. RoeAnd Casey. Kavanaugh stated that when you consider some of most significant cases, and most consequential cases in the court’s history there is a series of cases where precedent was overruled. His repeated suggestion was that the state should make decisions regarding abortion regulation.
Kavanaugh explained that Mississippi is arguing that the Court must be neutral regarding the question of abortion. The Court cannot decide whether it should be pro-choice, pro-life or not. Kavanaugh seems to have agreed. Kavanaugh seemed to agree. He asked. Because there are two distinct interests involved, and people might be valuing those interests differently in Mississippi or New York, you’ll get different answers from Alabama and California.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett (who said it) stare decisisThis is clearly the heart of the case” repeatedly asked questions about safe haven laws, which protect mothers from being sued if they give birth to a child in a fire station or hospital. Mississippi claims that Mississippi’s new circumstances support the repeal of these laws. Roe And Casey.
Barrett asked Stewart if he thought Mississippi’s ruling would affect other precedents that Justice Sonia Sotomayor mentioned, including those involving contraception and sodomy laws as well as gay marriage. He assured Barrett that those rulings were clear rules which had engendered strong dependencies and haven’t produced any negative consequences. stare decisisWe highlighted some points.
Anyone who believed that the Court would keep the essence of its abortion precedents, even if Mississippi’s law was upheld by the Court, these comments and questions are not good news. The insatiable reasons for the viability ruling and lack of viable alternatives may lead to a majority decision by the justices that the “half-measures” won’t work.