Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that declared a nationwide right to abortion, is facing its most serious challenge in 30 years in front of a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has been remade by three appointees of President Donald Trump.

“There are no half measures here,” said Sherif Girgis, a Notre Dame law professor who once served as a law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.

A ruling that overturned Roe and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey would lead to outright bans or severe restrictions on abortion in 26 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

The case being argued Wednesday comes from Mississippi, where a 2018 law would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability. The Supreme Court has never allowed states to ban abortion before the point at roughly 24 weeks when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The justices are separately weighing disputes over Texas’ much earlier abortion ban, at roughly six weeks, though those cases turn on the unique structure of the law and how it can be challenged in court, not the abortion right. Still, abortion rights advocates were troubled by the court’s 5-4 vote in September to allow the Texas law, which relies on citizen lawsuits to enforce it, to take effect in the first place.

“This is the most worried I’ve ever been,” said Shannon Brewer, who runs the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The clinic offers abortions up to 16 weeks of pregnancy and about 10% of abortions it performs take place after the 15th week, Brewer said.

She also noted that since the Texas law took effect, the clinic has seen a substantial increase in patients, operating five days or six days a week instead of two or three.

Lower courts blocked the Mississippi law, as they have other abortion bans that employ traditional enforcement methods by state and local officials.

The Supreme Court had never before even agreed to hear a case over a pre-viability abortion ban. But after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death last year and her replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third of Trump’s appointees, the court said it would take up the case.

Trump had pledged to appoint “pro-life justices” and predicted they would lead the way in overturning the abortion rulings. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, has publicly called for Roe to be overruled.

The court could uphold the Mississippi law without explicitly overruling Roe and Casey, an outcome that would satisfy neither side.

Abortion-rights advocates say that result would amount to the same thing as an outright ruling overturning the earlier cases because it would erase the rationale undergirding nearly a half-century of Supreme Court law.

“A decision upholding this ban is tantamount to overruling Roe. The ban prohibits abortion around two months before viability,” said Julie Rikelman, who will argue the case for the clinic.

On the other side, abortion opponents argue that the court essentially invented abortion law in Roe and Casey, and shouldn’t repeat that mistake in this case.

If the justices uphold Mississippi’s law, they’ll have to explain why, said Thomas Jipping, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow. They can either overrule the two big cases, Jipping said, “or they’re going to have to come up with another made-up rule.”

Conservative commentator Ed Whelan said such an outcome would be a “massive defeat” on par with the Casey decision in 1992, in which a court with eight justices appointed by Republican presidents unexpectedly reaffirmed Roe.

This court appears far more conservative than the one that decided Casey, and legal historian Mary Ziegler at Florida State University’s law school, said the court probably would “overrule Roe or set us on a path to doing so.”

Chief Justice John Roberts might find the more incremental approach appealing if he can persuade a majority of the court to go along. Since Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has moved in smaller steps on some issues, even when it appeared there was only a binary choice.

It took two cases for the court to rip out the heart of the federal Voting Rights Act that curbed potentially discriminatory voting laws in states with a history of discrimination.

In the area of organized labor, the court moved through a series of cases that chipped away at public sector unions’ power.

The high court also heard two rounds of arguments over restrictions on independent spending in the political arena before removing limits on how much money corporations and unions can pour into election advocacy.

If the court looks to public sentiment, it would find poll after poll that shows support for preserving Roe, though some surveys also find backing for greater restrictions on abortion.

Mississippi is one of 12 states ready to act almost immediately if Roe is overturned. Those states have enacted so-called abortion trigger laws that would take effect and ban all or nearly all abortions.

Women in those states wanting abortions could face drives of hundreds of miles to reach the nearest clinic or they might obtain abortion pills by mail. Medication abortions now account for 40% of abortions.

Some legal briefs in the case make clear that the end of Roe is not the ultimate goal of abortion opponents.

The court should recognize that “unborn children are persons” under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, a conclusion that would compel an end to almost all legal abortions, Princeton professor Robert George and scholar John Finnis wrote. Finnis was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s adviser on his Oxford dissertation, an argument against assisted suicide.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/supreme-court-set-to-take-up-all-or-nothing-abortion-fight

The post Supreme Court set to take up all-or-nothing abortion fight first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Demonstrators gathered in front of the Governor’s Mansion in Austin to protest against Senate Bill 8, an anti-abortion bill that Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law this morning.   Credit: Evan L’Roy/The Texas Tribune

Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Wednesday a measure that would prohibit in Texas abortions as early as six weeks — before some women know they are pregnant — and open the door for almost any private citizen to sue abortion providers and others.

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions — intended to make the law harder to block — are poised to be tested in the courts.

Abortion rights advocates have promised to challenge the new law, which they consider one of the most extreme nationwide and the strictest in Texas since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It would amount to an outright ban on abortions, as the six-week cutoff is two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle, opponents say.

The law takes effect in September.

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” Abbott said in a bill signing ceremony, captured on videos posted on social media. The Legislature “worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that I’m about to sign that ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.”

The governor’s signature comes just after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear a case concerning a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks, and which could lead to new limits on abortion rights. It is the first major abortion case heard before the court’s newly expanded conservative majority, and could have far-reaching effects for Texas, where a pending bill would outlaw nearly all abortions if the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

Senate Bill 8 was a top priority for Republican lawmakers, nearly all of whom signed on as an author or sponsor of the measure.

The bill bans abortions after whenever an ultrasound can detect what lawmakers defined as a fetal “heartbeat,” which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy. Medical and legal experts say the term is misleading because embryos don’t possess a heart at that developmental stage.

It includes cases where the woman was impregnated as a result of rape or incest. There is an exception for medical emergencies.

Similar bills have been passed by other states and held up by the courts, but Texas’ version has a twist.

Instead of having the government enforce the law, the bill turns the reins over to private citizens — who are newly empowered to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” has been detected. The person would not have to be connected to someone who had an abortion or to a provider to sue.

Proponents of the new law hope to get around the legal challenges that have tied up abortion restrictions in the courts. While abortion providers typically sue the state to stop a restrictive abortion law from taking effect, there’s no state official enforcing Senate Bill 8 — so there’s no one to sue, the bill’s proponents say.

“It’s a very unique law and it’s a very clever law,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

Legal experts have been divided on the strategy, and abortion rights advocates have said they plan to fight regardless.

Elisabeth Smith, chief counsel for state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has represented abortion providers who have sued Texas officials, said it and other abortion rights organizations are “not going to let this six-week ban go unchallenged.”

Drucilla Tigner, policy and advocacy strategist of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said the “governor’s swipe of a pen can’t change the Constitution.”

While the law amounts to the most extreme abortion ban in the country, “abortion is both legal in Texas and supported by the majority of Texans,” Tigner said.

Abortion rights advocates and lawyers say the new law would allow for a cascade of lawsuits against abortion providers that would sap their time and money even if they ultimately won in court.

Family members, abortion funds, rape crisis counselors and other medical professionals could be open to lawsuits, under the broad language in the bill, according to legal experts and physicians who opposed the measure. People who sued would be awarded at least $10,000, as well as costs for attorney’s fees, if they won.

“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” Blackman said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”

John Seago, with Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion organization that supported the bill, said he doubted there would be an “overwhelming number of cases on day one.”

Lawsuits might be filed by anti-abortion activists who learned through talking to the woman that she got an abortion after six weeks.

“There’s going to be a lot of different (fact) patterns that could lead to the case,” he said. But the bill isn’t “throwing out the typical way that the judicial system works — there’s still going to be a judge, there’s still going to be depositions, there’s going to be a high bar” before fees are awarded.

The ultimate goal, he said, is to incentivize abortion providers to comply with the law instead of fighting it in court.

They can “easily avoid all of that,” Seago said. “Have a public statement. Put it on their website that they’re not scheduling appointments after six weeks.”

The bill does not allow rapists to sue, but abortion rights advocates say the wording offers flimsy protection as most rapes and sexual assaults aren’t reported and don’t result in a conviction.

Most abortions in Texas were prohibited after about 20 weeks. Pill-induced abortions were barred at 10 weeks. An abortion provider must perform a sonogram on the woman 24 hours before the abortion and give them information about medical risks, abortion alternatives and assistance available to those who follow through with their pregnancy.

More than 56,600 abortions were performed on Texas residents in 2019, according to state statistics, most of them in the first trimester.

Proponents of the law celebrated its signing.

“The Legislature and Governor prioritized this historic legislation, and with his signature, approximately 50,000 precious human lives will be saved in Texas next year alone!” said Chelsey Youman, with Human Coalition Action, an anti-abortion organization.

Texas Right to Life called the bill’s signing a “landmark victory,” but said a more comprehensive measure was still waiting for a vote in the Legislature.

“Texas Right to Life reminds our elected officials of their solemn duty to protect the lives of their citizens, especially the most vulnerable and innocent Texans in the womb. The signing of the Texas Heartbeat Act marks a historic step in the battle to protect Life,” the organization said.

Opponents of the legislation condemned its passage.

Dyana Limon-Mercado, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, the political arm of Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas, said the six-week cutoff amounted to an effective ban on abortions in the state.

“When you factor in the time it takes to confirm a pregnancy, consider your options and make a decision, schedule an appointment and comply with all the restrictions politicians have already put in place for patients and providers, a six-week ban essentially bans abortion outright,” she said.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, head of Whole Woman’s Health, an abortion provider that has four clinics in Texas, said the law will have a “chilling effect.”

Protesters have previously falsely reported Whole Woman’s Health clinics to state health officials for allegedly having the wrong water heater permit, not following social distancing protocols during the pandemic, and other perceived regulatory infractions, she said.

The “false reports disrupt health care services and this culture of threats and accusations is designed to intimidate providers,” she said.

About 90% of women who come to Whole Woman’s Health clinics are more than six weeks into their pregnancy, she said.

Whole Woman’s Health has sued Texas over abortion restrictions, and won a 2016 case that went up to the Supreme Court.

The bill was opposed by more than 300 Texas lawyers who said it undermined longstanding rules and tenets of the legal system, including that a person must be injured to sue.

The law would also let someone file a lawsuit in their home county against an abortion clinic, and stop the case from being transferred to a different venue.

In practice, legal experts say it would be more costly and difficult for abortion providers to play legal defense before a judge hundreds of miles away, and it could let anti-abortion advocates be heard in courts that they think will be more sympathetic.

Seago, with Texas Right to Life, said it “will be interesting to see (how) the other kind of alternative avenues (handle) these debates.”

“We know how Judge (Lee) Yeakel and Judge (Sam) Sparks handle these cases,” he said, referring to two federal judges who reliably strike down Texas abortion restrictions.

Disclosure: Planned Parenthood has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

The post Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

By hearing the case in their next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2022, the justices will look at whether to overturn a central part of the landmark ruling, a longstanding goal of religious conservatives.

The eventual ruling by the conservative-majority court, expected next year, could allow states to ban abortions before a fetus is viable outside the womb, upending decades of legal precedent. Lower courts ruled against Mississippi’s law.

In the Roe v. Wade decision, subsequently reaffirmed in 1992, the court said that states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb, which is generally viewed by doctors as between 24 and 28 weeks. The Mississippi law would ban abortion much earlier than that. Other states have backed laws that would ban the procedure even earlier.

“Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights. The Supreme Court just agreed to review an abortion ban that unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and is a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is among those challenging the law.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, said she is committed to defending the law’s constitutionality.

“The Mississippi legislature enacted this law consistent with the will of its constituents to promote women’s health and preserve the dignity and sanctity of life. I remain committed to advocating for women and defending Mississippi’s legal right to protect the unborn,” Fitch said.

The Roe v. Wade ruling recognized that a constitutional right to personal privacy protects a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. The court in its 1992 decision, coming in the case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, reaffirmed the ruling and prohibited laws that place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Abortion opponents are hopeful the Supreme Court will narrow or overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority following the addition last year of Republican former President Donald Trump’s third appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

A person in a mask walks past the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

The United States Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., May 17, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration is committed to defending abortion rights. Psaki said abortion and access to healthcare have come under “withering and extreme attack” in recent years including through “draconian state laws.”

LOUISIANA RULING

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 June 2020 ruling struck down a Louisiana law that imposed restrictions on doctors who perform abortions. The late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the court at the time, and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the court’s liberal wing in the ruling. Roberts, however, made it clear that he voted that way because he felt bound by the court’s 2016 ruling striking down a similar Texas law.

The 2018 Mississippi law, like others resembling it passed by Republican-led states, was enacted with full knowledge that was a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

After the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jackson Women’s Health Organization sued to block the measure, a federal judge in 2018 ruled against the state. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 reached the same conclusion.

“States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions. The law at issue is a ban,” 5th Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote.

Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States, as in many countries. Christian conservatives are among those most opposed to it. U.S. abortion rates have steadily declined since the early 1980s, reaching the lowest levels on record in recent years, according to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute.

Jeanne Mancini, president of the anti-abortion group March for Life, said a ruling limiting abortion to early pregnancy would be in line with many other countries.

The Louisiana case ruling marked the court’s first major abortion decision since Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017 as justices. Both voted in favor of Louisiana’s restrictions. If Barrett were to vote on similar lines, conservatives could have a majority to curb abortion rights regardless of how Roberts votes. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Mississippi appeal had been pending at the court since June 2020. During that time, Ginsburg died and was replaced by Barrett and Trump lost his re-election bid, to be replaced by Biden, who supports abortion rights.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source:  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-takes-up-case-that-could-limit-abortion-rights-2021-05-17/

The post U.S. Supreme Court takes up major challenge to abortion rights first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Two names have been emerging from the list of Supreme Court contenders President Trump is said to be considering following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to reports.

Judges Amy Coney Barrett in Chicago and Barbara Lagoa in Atlanta are said to top the list.

Trump told a North Carolina rally crowd Saturday night that he intended to nominate a woman to succeed Ginsburg, who died Friday at age 87 after a battle with pancreatic cancer.

“It will be a woman — a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump said of his potential choice. “I think it should be a woman. I actually like women much more than I like men.”

“It will be a woman — a very talented, very brilliant woman. I think it should be a woman.”

— President Trump

Barrett, 48, a judge with the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is a conservative, pro-life Roman Catholic who clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia after she graduated from law school.

SUPREME COURT NOMINEES IF BIDEN WINS: WHO MIGHT BE CONSIDERED

The New Orleans native was appointed by Trump to the Seventh Circuit in 2017. She previously taught law at the University of Notre Dame for 15 years but had no judicial record at the time, according to the Washington Post.

She believes in originalism, the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is seen in a 2017 photo. (University of Notre Dame Law School via The Associated Press)

During her confirmation hearing to the Seventh Circuit, she said she wouldn’t let her personal religious beliefs affect her judicial decisions and would consider rulings like Roe v. Wade binding precedent, although experts have said she would likely support overturning it, the newspaper reported.

TRUMP RALLY CROWD CHANTS ‘FILL THAT SEAT!’ AS SUPREME COURT CHOICE LOOMS

Lagoa, 52, on the other hand, has an extensive judicial record.

Judge Barbara Lagoa, center, speaks as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Lt. Gov Jeanette Nunez, left, look on, Jan. 9, 2019, in Miami. (Associated Press)

The Miami native was nominated in 2006 by then-Gov. Jeb Bush to Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeals, where she served for more than a decade before being elevated briefly to the state’s Supreme Court. Last year, Trump nominated her to the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and she was easily confirmed, according to USA Today.

Lagoa is a member of the conservative Federalist Society and is backed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis but some have questioned her conservative credentials, especially on abortion, according to Politico.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

She’s also a Roman Catholic and of Cuban descent, which could help Trump in November.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-supreme-court-court-pick-likely-to-be-amy-coney-barrett-or-barbara-lagoa-reports

The post Trump’s Supreme Court court pick likely to be Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa: reports first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

As an attorney, and specifically as a matrimonial attorney, issues pertaining to the current pandemic and the government measures and regulations instituted as a result thereof, have already presented legal questions in my practice. While the government, state and federal, are instituting public health regulations, stay at home orders, and classifying essential and nonessential employment and medical procedures, we wonder and consider the authority to do so in light of civil and religious liberties.

A recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Firth Circuit has brought these issues to the forefront. Specifically, Texas classified abortion as a non-essential procedure that doctors were required to postpone during this time and we are faced with the constitutionality of such classification, which, some allege, infringes on a woman’s right to access to an abortion.

In the late 1800s, states began passing laws making abortions illegal. In the 1960s and 70s, with the growth of the women’s liberation movement, states began liberalizing their abortion laws. Then, a case involving a Texas anti-abortion law (which law banned abortion, except if necessary to save the woman’s life) made its way to the Supreme Court, which decided in 1973, in the landmark case Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), that states right to regulate abortions must be limited based on an individual’s right to liberty. Specifically, the court found that the mother’s liberty interests outweigh the state’s interest in “prenatal life” up until a certain point in the pregnancy, the point of viability, the point when a fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb.  However, despite this groundbreaking decision in Roe v. Wade, since then thousands of laws have been enacted in the states limiting rights to access and obtain the procedure.

Last week, Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas was allowed to prevent doctors from performing abortions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, except in very limited circumstances. Texas Governor Greg Abbot’s Executive Order provides that health care professionals and facilities postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately, medically necessary to correct a serious medical condition or to preserve the life of a patient who without immediate performance of the surgery or procedure would be at risk for serious adverse medical consequences or death, as determined by the patient’s physician.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has famously said: “The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

The question we are facing is, when can a state impose on individual liberties in favor of public welfare? In answering this question, courts naturally look to prior precedent to aid in their response.

The Court of Appeals in Texas relied on the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which permitted an individual’s freedom to be subordinated to the police power of the state and common welfare. In that case, a pastor was seeking to resist a mandatory smallpox vaccination regulation enacted in 1902 under Chapter 75, §173 of the Laws of Massachusetts. The pastor in Jacobson was amongst a group that was alarmed by the discovery of the vaccination as well as the ingredients and the means of implementing it. The complainant there brought his case to the Supreme Court asserting that mandating such vaccination (or imposing a fine for those who refused it) was an “invasion of his liberty” and infringed on his 14th amendment rights under the Constitution (1789), which states in relevant part that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Massachusetts Commonwealth, c. 75, §137, stated, “the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.”

The Cambridge, Massachusetts Regulation of Feb. 27, 1902, stated: “Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge and still continues to increase; and whereas it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated, and whereas, in the opinion of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered, that all the inhabitants of the city who have not been successfully vaccinated since March 1, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.”

In a 7-2 decision delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the court rejected the complainant’s claims that the 14th amendment gave him a right to refuse the smallpox vaccination and found the law to be constitutional. In so doing, the Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to enforce a fine against a citizen who refused the vaccination. In its decision, the Supreme Court found that the vaccination program “had a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety” and asserted that police power may overcome individual liberties in certain situations that can otherwise expose “great dangers” to the safety of the “general public.” As such, the then current smallpox epidemic justified the alleged infringement on individual liberties there. Furthermore, the exercise of police power was found to be a direct measure for eradicating the epidemic and was not found to be arbitrary.

So, it seems that the Supreme Court answered our earlier question in 1905 with a two-prong test: (1) Is there a compelling state interest in an effort to protect public health and safety? (2) Is the State’s police power necessary and being exercised in a reasonable and not an arbitrary manner? Others have broken this test into four elements: (1) necessity, (2) reasonable means, (3) proportionality, and (4) harm avoidance.

We can see how relevant this case can become in the times ahead dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. As stated above, the Fifth Circuit has invoked the Jacobson case to permit Texas to include abortion clinics in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries during the current pandemic. In so doing, Texas officials rejected arguments made about abortion that were invoked in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, who delivered the opinion, invoked Jacobson as permission to restrict constitutional rights in light of a public health emergency. However, the dissenting judges looked toward the second aspect of the decision in Jacobson, which involved whether the measure was arbitrary or a direct measure to combat the epidemic. In the current Texas decision, the dissent noted the distinction between this case and the 1905 public health case where the vaccine was a direct measure to combat smallpox, asserting that the restriction of abortion access has no such direct relationship with the current pandemic.

With scientists and medical professionals working on a vaccine for COVID-19 and hoping that such vaccination would be available in the next year, we are likely to see this issue relating to the vaccination come back, as it has since 1905 as well.

What we did not see in Jacobson was a discussion of the First Amendment (the First Amendment of the Constitution stating in relevant part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”) and religious exemptions to vaccination, which often come up as well. This may be because the court there was not ruling on a state’s power to physically vaccinate a person but rather whether a state was permitted to impose a fine for failing to vaccinate. The issue of religious liberties may also present itself as it relates to the state’s power to restrict access to and mandate the closure of churches and temples. This was especially relevant during the religious holidays of Passover and Easter, where people often come together and congregate to pray and celebrate.

The question that is posed relating to religious exercise is, when do government interests in protecting public welfare outweigh an individual’s right to freely exercise his/her religion? The Supreme Court assesses these issues with detailed analyses on a case-by-case basis.

In 1963, the Supreme Court established a balancing test in the case Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), in order to address that issue. This case related to an employee being fired for refusing to work on the Sabbath and that employee being barred from receiving unemployment benefits are a result of her being fired for that reason. Her unemployment claim was denied because the state found being fired for religious reasons was good cause. The Supreme Court found the denial of complainant’s unemployment claim to be unconstitutional and against her right to freely excise her religion. The court there found that, in order to justify a burden on religion, the government must demonstrate a compelling public interest and demonstrate that the law in question was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This case/standard was invoked in 1990 when the court heard Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith,  494 US 872 (1990), relating to members of the Native American Church being fired for “misconduct” and being denied unemployment benefits because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes as a Church ceremony. In that case, though, the court found the Free Exercise Clause permits the state to prohibit ingestion of peyote, even for religious purposes. In so holding, the court cited Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), a case relating to polygamy, which states that “the Clause does not relive an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.” A major distinction between that case and Sherbert is that, in Sherbert, the conduct that prohibited the individual from receiving unemployment benefits was not prohibited by law. As such, the court stated that “we would not apply it [Sherbert test] to require exemptions from a generally applicable criminal law.

In a 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Supreme Court again faced the topic of the interaction between state police power and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  There, a Wisconsin law compelling attendance by children until age 16 was being challenged by three Amish families who asserted that their religion prohibited such public education beyond eighth grade. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment right assertion and found that the state infringed on such rights. The court further found that the state did not provide adequate proof of the benefits of the extra few years of school, which would justify any infringement on religion. Interestingly, the court also referenced that Amish community is a successful social unit in American society, including being self-sufficient and law-abiding, and the court also noted that the Amish community, after eighth grade, continued education in the form of vocational training.

As it relates to state regulations requiring children be vaccinated in order to procure entrance into public schools, criteria vary but states generally apply a three-part test to determine when to appropriately apply such exemptions: (1) is the parent a member of a recognized religious organization; (2) has the parent demonstrated a sincere and genuine religious belief that opposes one or all of the vaccinations; and (3) the parent must sign a statement confirming they are opposed and would like to assert the exemption. Shaun McFall, Vaccination & Religious Exemption, Freedom Forum Institute (Aug. 18, 2008).

County and state courts tend to favor vaccinations for children as prescribed by the pediatrician; however, with such a new vaccine, we don’t know how the courts will respond and opine on this issue. A.C. v. D.R., 36 A.D. 465 (2007).

We may also see an influx of matrimonial cases to determine how to handle divorced parents with differing opinions as to how to handle this pandemic and what is in their child(ren)’s best interest. This can include disputes relating to whether or not their child(ren) should be permitted to be vaccinated under the circumstances, and also whether or not their child should be quarantined, whether custody should temporarily change, whether the regular parenting schedule should be adhered to, whether the child should still participate in traditional religious activities, and what the proper measure of social distancing.

In these uncertain times, I consider a famous quote by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt for guidance: “To handle yourself, use your head; to handle others, use your heart.”

Alexandra Weaderhorn is an attorney at Schonfeld & Goldring.

Source: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/04/21/legal-and-constitutional-considerations-in-the-time-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/?slreturn=20200419201832#

The post Legal and Constitutional Considerations in the Time of the Coronavirus Pandemic first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

By 55%-45%, those surveyed oppose the so-called fetal heartbeat laws passed in five states that bar abortions after the pulsing of an embryo can be detected, which can happen as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. By nearly three to one, 73%-27%, they oppose seeing all abortion facilities in their states closed, a possibility in Missouri.

There is broad support among those on both sides of the debate for the Supreme Court to hear cases involving the new state laws. Fifty percent say the high court should uphold the right to abortion established in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, and another 30% say Roe v. Wade should be upheld but with strict limits allowed.

One in five say the 1973 decision should be overturned, giving states the power to outlaw abortion.

RESULTS: USA TODAY/Ipsos poll on abortion

The nationwide poll of 1,005 adults, taken online Friday and Saturday, has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Which voters are energized?

The limits on abortion have been driven in large part by Republican-controlled legislatures, but their success in passing laws is energizing Democratic voters. A 52% majority of Democrats say the renewed abortion debate makes them more likely to vote in the 2020 elections.

Limits on abortion: Where is abortion legal? Everywhere. But …

In contrast, a 55% majority of Republicans say the debate will have no effect on their likelihood to vote.

The intensified national focus on abortion isn’t one that most Americans welcome. By a double-digit margin, 57%-43%, those surveyed say the renewed debate is “bad for the United States.” That view is a tick higher at the center of the furor, in the nine states that have recently passed laws limiting abortions.

Women nationwide express more alarm than men: 62% of women call the debate bad for the USA, compared with 52% of men.

Public’s attitude more nuanced than politicians’

The public’s attitude toward abortion is more complicated and shaded than the black-and-white divide in the political world.

Though the GOP platform opposes abortion without citing any exceptions, Republicans are particularly fractured on the issue. One-third of Republicans (34%) say Roe v. Wade should be overturned. A third (32%) say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, and another third (34%) say the basic legality of abortion should be upheld but strict limits allowed.

The Democratic Party platform endorses abortion rights without any governmental interference. Among Democrats, 67% support upholding Roe v. Wade; 22% say the basic legality should be upheld but strict limits allowed; 10% say it should be overturned.

“Despite the strong emotions that abortion elicits, we find that most Americans are not absolutists on the issue, understanding its many nuances,” says Cliff Young, president of Ipsos Public Affairs. “Indeed, over the last few decades, the primary sticking point has not been abortion yes or no – but under what conditions is abortion acceptable. Our poll puts a spotlight on this underlying historic trend.”

Abortion rights supporters rally across the nation. Protesters rally to stop the abortion bans in the United States on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on May 21, 2019. Jack Gruber, USAT

In the survey, 26% of all those surveyed say abortion should be legal in all cases, and 28% say it should be legal in most cases. Thirteen percent say it should be illegal in all cases, and 24% say it should be illegal in most cases.

Some states have passed restrictions in hopes of provoking a Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade or erode its protections for abortion rights.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards signed a law Thursday prohibiting abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, similar to measures passed in Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio and Kentucky. In May, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed a law prohibiting abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy, and Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed the most restrictive abortion law in the nation, outlawing abortion at any stage of a pregnancy unless there is a serious health risk to the woman. Utah and Arkansas have enacted laws that bar most abortions after 18 weeks.

Edwards is a Democrat; the other states have Republican governors.

None of the laws has taken effect, and virtually all of them are likely to face legal challenges.

Some states are moving to strengthen abortion rights. In Nevada on Friday, Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak signed a bill that removed criminal penalties for abortion and eased some abortion regulations, and the Illinois Legislature sent to the governor’s desk a measure aimed at protecting access to abortion. Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he will sign it.

The USA TODAY/Ipsos poll surveyed 400 Democrats, with a credibility interval of 5.8 points, and 348 Republicans, with a credibility interval of 6 points.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/03/abortion-poll-fetal-heartbeat-laws-most-oppose-democrat-voters-energized/1319419001/

The post Abortion poll: Most Americans oppose ‘fetal heartbeat’ laws, closing of all clinics in a state first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Edwards urged his party colleagues to do so as well, tweeting a statement on Wednesday saying “I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”

LOUISIANA GOVERNOR, A DEMOCRAT, POISED TO SIGN ‘HEARTBEAT’ ABORTION BAN INTO LAW

John Bel Edwards@LouisianaGov

My statement on the passage of SB 184 following final passage by the Louisiana Legislature. #lalege #lagov

The fetal heartbeat abortion ban applies to pregnancies as early as six weeks, before some woman even know they are pregnant and include exceptions only for “medically futile” instances where the mother’s health is at risk or the baby is stillborn. The bill necessitates an ultrasound to confirm pregnancy and does not include exceptions for women who were victims of rape and incest.

Many fellow Democrats lashed out at Edwards, with 2020 presidential candidate Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., accusing the governor of “turning his back on Louisiana women by signing this shameful bill.”

The bill’s passage makes Louisiana the fifth state, after Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio, to pass a fetal heartbeat act in its state, which challenges the constitutional right to an abortion guaranteed by the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed an Alabama abortion bill into law earlier in May that makes performing abortions at any stage of pregnancy, with no exceptions except health risks to the mother, a felony crime punishable by up to life imprisonment.

In Lousiana, doctors and medical providers who perform an abortion could face up to two years in prison and lose their medical license.

Although many of the states legislations have been challenged in court because of its constitutional conflict, state lawmakers hope that the controversy will facilitate Supreme Court justices in overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Louisiana law will not go into effect until Mississippi’s similar legislation is upheld by a federal court, but so far, it faces legal challenges as a federal judge blocked the Mississippi law by injunction on Friday.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/louisianas-governor-a-democrat-signs-heartbeat-abortion-bill-into-law

The post Louisiana’s governor, a Democrat, signs ‘heartbeat’ abortion bill into law first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Democrats are now the party of infanticide, and no one can deny it first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The state Senate voted 38-24 in favor of the so-called “Reproductive Health Act” Tuesday evening, the Albany Times-Union reports, a bill that has repeatedly cleared the state Assembly in years past but been blocked by the formerly-Republican Senate. Following the Senate vote, the Assembly passed it 92-47.

The bill declares that “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” erases the state’s recognition of preborn babies older than 24 weeks as potential homicide victims, removes abortion from the penal code entirely, and allows licensed health practitioners other than full doctors to commit abortions.

URGENT: Tell Gov. Cuomo to apologize for using World Trade Center to celebrate abortion. Sign the petition here.

“We have a president who’s made it very, very clear that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins declared before the vote. “Today, here in New York, we are saying no […] and we’re not just saying no. We’re saying that here in New York, women’s health matters. We’re saying here in New York, women’s lives matter. We’re saying here in New York, women’s decisions matter.”

The Times-Union suggests the bill would allow “late-stage” abortions only if the mother’s “health” is endangered or if the baby is deemed non-viable, but the New York State Right to Life Committee warns that the bill would go much further in practice.

Declaring abortion a “fundamental right” opens the door to invalidating “any limits on abortion” and “mandat[ing that everyone take part in the culture of death,” the group warns. The bill would also prevent pregnant women whose babies are killed in violent attacks from seeing justice, and have the effect of “authorizing infanticide” by repealing the requirement that a second physician be on hand in the event that an attempted abortion past 20 weeks yields a live infant.

The bill is also part of a broader trend of left-wing states codifying a “right” to abortion in anticipation of a future Supreme Court ruling that could reverse Roe, restoring states’ ability to ban abortion themselves and automatically banning it in the handful of states with pre-Roe bans still on the books.

“To see New York pass a bill so that right is protected, is just a dream come true,” said Sarah Ragle Weddington, an attorney who represented Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey in the original case. The Times-Union does not mention that Weddington’s former client became pro-life in 1995 and dedicated the rest of her life to opposing Roe.

New York’s Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has vowed to promote abortion as part of “the most progressive agenda this state have ever seen,” is expected to sign the bill.

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-legislature-votes-to-protect-roe-legalize-abortion-up-to-birth

The post New York legislature votes to legalize abortion up to birth, let non-doctors commit abortions first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.