Comments on: The next abortion case?

By: anon

anon — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:07:00 +0000

Yeah… cause one problem this blog has is being flooded with comments.

How about letting us read them and deciding what is relevant?

By: Tom Goldstein

Tom Goldstein — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:27:42 +0000

FYI – I have stopped posting comments re Ayotte other than those very strictly limited to the jurisprudential issue.

By: Jonathan Barker

Jonathan Barker — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 08:19:04 +0000

Both of the above comments are inaccurate. It is not that these statutes fail to include an exemption for the life of the mother; it is that these statutes fail to include an exemption for the health of the mother. Health is more capacious a term and implies not only imminent risk of death, but any economic, familial, social, psychological, mental, or spiritual reason, as per Doe v. Bolton. In other words, any reason (read: abortion-on-demand).

The reason these bills are being struck down is that they do not contaion a clause that explicitly permits women to have late-term abortions because they are tired of having unbearable headaches.

By: Cara

Cara — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:09:56 +0000

Actually, Ayotte is going to be more about the standard of review as laid out in Casey (the undue burden standard). Under the undue burden standard, there has to be a health exception. So if SCOTUS rules, in Ayotte, that the undue burden standard isn’t the standard for a facial challenge to abortion laws, then it’s a whole new ballgame…
At least, that’s what I gather.

By: Unlearned Hand

Unlearned Hand — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:00:06 +0000

The next abortion case?

SCOTUS blog reports that a case regarding partial birth abortions may be en route to the Supreme Court:A decision by the Fourth Circuit on Friday may set the stage for the next test in the Supreme Court of the constitutionality

By: Trish Wilson

Trish Wilson — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:01:12 +0000

I figured the reason the law was struck down was because it did not include an exemption for the life of the mother. That makes it unconstitutional. I think anti-choice forces write “partial birth” abortion laws without that exemption on purpose. They know the laws will either die as proposed bills (as one did in Massachusetts) or they will later be struck down. That way, they can keep the issue alive.

By: Simon

Simon — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:04:11 +0000

Both this case and the recently-accepted Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood seem to be running into exactly the same roadblock: that they provide no (or inadequate) exceptions for the life of the mother, something that flies in the face of Casey in particular. I cannot see how either of these could expect to survive a griling by the court, and I think it would be far more interesting to see a case where adequate exceptions WERE made.