On Tuesday morning, Republican Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia placed his long-awaited signature on the Live Infants Justice and Equality (LIFE) Act, also known as the Heartbeat Act. As with the states where it was passed, including Ohio, a legal challenge is expected.
Heartbeat laws are intended to protect the innocent life of the unborn, in this case when a fetal heartbeat is detected. Alabama is considering an even more stringent law that would completely ban abortion and make performing the procedure a Class C crime. In addition to protecting the unborn, these laws also respond to states that have considered extremist laws that go further, with states such as New York allowing abortion until birth.
It’s not just blue states that are considering or have legalized abortion up to birth, which red states are not. These are the courts.
Because the United States has some of the most relaxed abortion laws in the world, states have at least recently tried to gradually ease Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
If anyone hopes that Alabama’s heartbeat and abortion laws will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, look to the Supreme Court and lower courts to see what we are working towards here.
While many pro-life advocates celebrate the passage of the Heartbeat Act, the Virginia Society for Human Life issued this statement on Monday press release in Falls Church Health Care Center v. Oliver. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Georgia, struck down a law that prohibited advanced practice clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, from performing first-trimester abortions.
A statement from Olivia Gans Turner, the organization’s president, noted that the decision “directly conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court review precedent” and said that “it would be almost certain that the Supreme Court would overturn this unprincipled ruling.” However, the group is concerned that Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring will not appeal the decision, “prioritizing his personal support for abortion on demand.”
Last month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated a state law that required providers to follow the FDA’s 2000 protocol rather than the updated protocol. While the FDA recently updated its protocol to allow women to operate medication abortion for up to ten weeks, the previous protocol and under Oklahoma law allowed for up to seven weeks. This is worth noting that the later in pregnancy a woman delays undergoing this method, the greater the risk of an incomplete abortion.
This was around the same time that the Kansas Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Kansas Unborn tgmChild Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which would have banned the second-trimester abortion procedure, known as dismemberment abortions. The 6-1 decision sounds eerily similar to Roe and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. “Although it is not an absolute right, it is a fundamental right,” reads part of the opinion. If this is the case, why then are abortions allowed in the second trimester? This decision may not be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The remedy for such a ruling is therefore an amendment to the state constitution.
In behind schedule March, U.S. District Judge William Osteen found North Carolina’s 20-week abortion ban unconstitutional. Before heartbeat bills became a trend, there were 20-week abortion bans that banned mid-pregnancy abortions. when unborn babies may feel pain. There are late-term abortions mainly done ON hearty women who have hearty fetuses, but they are also like that significantly threateningeven deadlyfor women and their prohibition is supported by a majority of Americansincluding those who identify as pro-choice. The United States is one of only seven nations which allows elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.
What can we count on when it comes to cases before the US Supreme Court? We’re not sure yet, even considering that two Trump-nominated justices are on the bench, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was sympathetic to abortion rights.
There seems to always be at least one conservative on the bench who is disappointed with abortion rulings. Earlier this year, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberals on the Court to temporarily block Louisiana’s abortion law from going into effect. The law was intended to regulate abortion facilities and required abortion providers to have hospital admission privileges. In a 5-3 decision in 2016 in Whole Womens Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck down a similar Texas law.
North Dakota passed a heart rate law back in 2013. Notably, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2016, meaning it was permanently overturned.
How should we approach future rulings, when and if they will be issued? The bleak view is that the Supreme Court will take up the heartbeat laws and not only strike them down, but actually tighten abortion laws, as Casey did, setting a standard that women cannot be subjected to “undue burden” by seeking abortion. Should states wait until Roe is overturned by another abortion law before trying to pass heartbeat laws?
There is another, more hopeful way of looking at the situation. Laws such as those in Texas and Louisiana requiring abortion providers to have abortion-receiving privileges do not outright prohibit abortion, but rather seek to regulate the procedure. The heartbeat bills and a bill under consideration in Alabama would ban this procedure. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court needs a case this direct to rule on abortion and overturn Casey, Roe, and Doe.
Times have changed. Even when states pass extremist pro-abortion legislation, Americans may realize that we no longer want some of the most pro-abortion laws in the world. Let’s hope our courts will catch up.
