Keeping 2 Exceptions Out of Alabama Abortion Bill Was Key - Page 2

Because the eye is on the prize: the Supreme Court
By Newser Editors,  Newser Staff
Posted May 15, 2019 12:59 PM CDT

  • But "the Supreme Court has taken a relatively lax attitude toward respecting long-standing precedents, including overturning a 40-year-old precedent just this week," writes B. Jessie Hill for the Guardian. That said, "to avoid the appearance that the court is a political body whose decisions are driven by changes in personnel rather than legal principle, it might just let stand [any] lower-court decisions striking down the 'heartbeat' bans." And it can do so "without explanation or justification."
  • At the National Review, Alexandra DeSanctis doesn't hold much hope for the bill's chance of success with the courts "given the current framework of abortion-rights jurisprudence instantiated by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But the scathing media coverage that these pro-life laws receive—compared to laws that allow abortion for any reason, even after fetuses are developed enough to survive outside the womb—is telling."
  • Much has been made about the bill's lack of exceptions for cases of rape or incest. In a piece for the Washington Post, Joyce White Vance writes that's intentional. "If abortion is permissible in those instances, a fetus is not entitled to the full protection any other person would receive," writes the former US attorney for Alabama. "That helps explain why the bill’s sponsors are willing to fight so desperately to keep exceptions for rape and incest out of it, even though many conservatives support those measures. The bill is not about introducing policies that could reduce abortions ... It is a measure that would permit a presumably willing Supreme Court to create a pro-birth rule, declaring a fetus a person from the moment of conception, with all of the attendant consequences, intended and unintended."
(Read more Alabama stories.)

My Take on This Story
Show results  |