قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Supreme Court abandons law that effectively prohibits abortion through pill-for-now: NPR

Supreme Court abandons law that effectively prohibits abortion through pill-for-now: NPR



The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal to an Arkansas bill that would make a medical abortion illegal.

J. Scott Apple White / AP


Hide label

Shift

J. Scott Apple White / AP

The United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal to an Arkansas bill that would make a medical abortion illegal.

J. Scott Apple White / AP

Updated at 19.00 ET

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the rejection of an abortion law in Arkansas, which prohibits abortion abortions rather than surgery.

The result is that Arkansas is now the only state in the world. Englisch: bio-pro.de/en/region/stern/magazine/…3/index.html. a method that has been certified by the Food and Drug Administration as at least as safe as surgical abortions. However, the decision of the Supreme Court not to intervene at this time is not final.

Defenders of abortion rights had propagated the Arkansas case as the first major test of the 2016 Supreme Court's decision to abolish key provisions of a Texas law that the judges considered an undue and unjustified burden on women's access to abortion.

"Arkansas is now shamefully responsible for being the first state to ban abortion," Dawn Laguen, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. "This dangerous law also immediately stops access to a safe, legal abortion at all but one health center in the state." If that is not an unreasonable burden, what is? "This law can not and must not exist." We will not stop for the right of every human being to fight." Access to safe, legal abortions.

Jerry Cox, Executive Director of the Family Council, reacted quite differently.

"This is very good news for people who are interested in the safety of women in Arkansas," he said in a statement, adding: "This is a pro-life victory not just for the women of Arkansas, but for women on the other hand, I'm sure other states are looking at Arkansas and thinking of following our example.

Targeting Medical Abortions

Arkansas considered his law different because it prohibited medical abortions by using pills rather than surgical instruments, unless the clinic had a contract with a physician who had privileges in a hospital

Planned Parenthood questioned the law in court and stated that the requirement for privileges was the same as that dismissed by the Supreme Court in the Texas case was carried out by the state's OB / GYNs, who did not want to be subject to disclosure and related harassment and threats if they pledged to grant privileges in nearby hospitals.

Federal Judge Kristine Baker in Little Rock then issued a restraining order By enacting the Arkansas Act, she cited this poll and the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas case. She also said that complications resulting from an abortion procedure can be routinely treated in an emergency room at the hospital.

The benefits of the law are few at best, she concluded, and outweighed the burden imposed on women seeking for abortions.

But a three-member judge panel of federal appeals judges – all appointed by President George W. Bush – did not agree. They let the law come into force and sent it back to Judge Baker to determine the number of women who are subject to the law.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

At this point, Planned Parenthood appealed to the Supreme Court, which appealed to the Supreme Court to review the judgment of the appellate court

Helene Kasnoff, head of litigation for Planned Parenthood, said that Results of the trial are tough.

"Women were called today and sent away," said Kasnoff. The abortions of the women through the pill were canceled. Two of the three abortion providers in the states concluded, she said, adding, "It's not like a procedural game … in terms of what that really means."

The judges on Tuesday did not explain why they did not intervene at this stage, but no judiciary registered a dissent. This would strongly suggest that the reasons were procedural rather than substantive.

In short, the court did not want to intervene until there was a final ruling in the case. In fact, Planned Parenthood said that it would immediately ask Judge Baker to make the findings required by the Federal Appeals Tribunal.

Closing Hospital Doors

It is worth noting that the judges similarly did not intervene in the Texas case in 2013, with similar results in 2013. Twenty-four of the 41 abortion providers in Texas were forced to shut their doors Doors, and although the Supreme Court wrote down the law two years later, less than a handful of these closed clinics have reopened.

In Arkansas, only the Planned Parenthood clinic in Little Rock is equipped for surgical abortions, and patients in other parts of the state would have to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion there.

Arkansas has a history of attempting to introduce restrictive abortion laws that date to struggles in the 1990s. Recently, it tried to issue a 12-week ban on abortion, which would have been the country's most stringent law.

A federal appeals court consisting of a three-member panel of judges appointed by Republican President George W. Bush. blocks this effort.

Abortion by pill, a method that is increasingly favored by women in their first trimester, is a method that has been found to be very safe, with complications in less than a fifth of 1 percent of cases, a far lower rate of complications for the mother as carrying a child.

Two other cases make their way through lower courts, Missouri and Louisiana test laws, which are very similar to the Texas law, which was suppressed by the Supreme Court two years earlier.

Depending on how these cases develop – and one before the same appeals court that heard the case of Arkansas, the other the same appeals court reversed in the Texas case – abortion could next go to the Supreme Court in the United States Foreground occur concept, again.


Source link