The Supreme Court's commitment to the abortion law of Indiana keeps the issue out of its agenda - HailNewsUp.com: provides the latest news from India and the world

Breaking

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

The Supreme Court's commitment to the abortion law of Indiana keeps the issue out of its agenda

The Supreme Court's commitment to the abortion law of Indiana keeps the issue out of its agenda
The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to commit to restrictive abortion law in Indiana that for now keeps the issue off its agenda.

The court said that part of the law dealing with the removal of the "remains" of abortion could take effect. But it did not assume part of the law imposed by lower courts that prohibited abortions because the evidence revealed an anomaly.

The court indicated that it would wait for other courts to intervene before addressing this issue.

Indiana law was challenged by Vice President Pence when he was governor of the state.

The decision not to schedule a review of the opinion of the US Court of Appeals. UU For the Seventh Circuit came just after Alabama passed the law that practically prohibited abortion in that state. Lawmakers say they expect unprecedented restrictions will lead to a Supreme Court confrontation over the right to abortion that the court established in Roe v. Wade.

But the compromise on Indiana law indicated that the court could proceed slowly. It has been considered whether the law should be revised since January, and Tuesday's decision indicated that reaching an agreement took some time.

Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have confirmed the decision of the Seventh Circuit that prevents the entire law from taking effect.

The part of the court authorized to enter into force requires that the "remains" of the abortion or miscarriage be buried or incinerated, as required by other human remains.

"This court has already recognized that a state has a 'legitimate interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains'," the court wrote in the unsigned opinion, citing a decision of 1983. "The only question left, then, as if Indiana's law is rationally related to the state's interest in the adequate elimination of fetal remains, we conclude that it is, even if it is not perfectly adapted for that purpose. "

The other provision would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if the woman chooses the procedure because of the sex or race of the fetus, or because of a diagnosis or "potential diagnosis" of Down syndrome or "any other disability." Inform the woman of the prohibitions.

The court said it was not taking a position on "whether Indiana can prohibit the provision of selective abortions for sex, race, and disability by abortion providers." He said that, since the Seventh Circuit is the only appellate court that has considered the matter, "we follow our usual practice of rejecting petitions, to the extent that they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional appellate courts."

Judge Clarence Thomas, in a 20-page statement, said the court will eventually have to decide the question of what he called "eugenic abortions."

"The Court's decision to allow additional percolation should not be construed as an agreement" with the Seventh Circuit, Thomas wrote. I have included a long history of the birth control movement.

"By imposing the constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex or disability of an unborn child, as defenders of Planned Parenthood, would constitute the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement." No other judge joined Thomas.

The premise of the "Disposition of Fetal Disposition," Indiana lawyers told the Supreme Court, "is that an aborted or aborted fetus is nothing less than the remains of a partially gestated human being and should be treated with the same dignity. "

But the federal courts that reviewed the provision said it was unreasonable in the light of past Supreme Court decisions that determined that a fetus is not a person for constitutional purposes. Advocates of abortion rights argued that because the law allowed a woman to get rid of the "tissue" as she chose, the true purpose of the position was to impose a burden on the woman.

Indiana said the provision prohibiting "discriminatory abortions" was a response from the Indiana legislature "to the alarming trend of selective disability abortions" that was made possible by advances in genetic testing of pregnancies.

It requires doctors to report that "Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted only because of its race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, diagnosis or possible diagnosis of a fetus with Down syndrome or any other disability."

It exempts cases of "lethal fetal abnormalities", but that is defined as a condition that is reasonably considered to mean death within three months after birth. Those advocates of abortion rights say they would rule out a series of conditions that result in child deaths outside of that three-month period.

The 7th Circuit panel said the provision could not be maintained, because "nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the Constitution] or the precedent of the Supreme Court allows the state to invade this privacy to examine the underlying basis of a woman's decision. end its previous viability. "

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an influential conservative on the circuit, was skeptical that the Supreme Court "did not make this law." Identify the validity of law against eugenics. "He said that the judges" should not impute the decisions of the judges they have not taken, that they have not faced, "concluding that" only the Supreme Court can determine the answer. "