One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Supreme Court Ducks Case on Alabama ‘Dismemberment A******n’ Ban
Jun 29, 2019 11:37:01   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Supreme Court Ducks Case on Alabama ‘Dismemberment A******n’ Ban
https://www.westernjournal.com/author/jbuckby/?ff_source=push&ff_medium=conservativetribune&ff_campaign=pushtraffic&ff_content=2019-06-29

The Supreme Court ruled against hearing Alabama’s case on legislation that bans “dismemberment a******ns” on Friday, the Washington Examiner reported.

In February, 21 states filed a petition to hear the case after the legislation was blocked.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear it means Alabama’s ban on this method of a******n will remain in place. A federal judge previously ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional.

Officially known as a “dilation and evacuation” a******n, the procedure involves using tools to physically remove a fetus from the womb.

It is explained in detail in the February petition.

“In a ‘dismemberment a******n,’ a doctor ‘dismember[s] a living unborn child and extract[s] him or her one piece at a time from the uterus through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush, or grasp … a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off,’” it read.

Alabama’s law blocked doctors from performing the procedure unless the life or health of a pregnant woman was in danger. No exceptions were made for cases of incest or rape.

The legislation would also see doctors who illegally perform the procedure put behind bars for up to two years.

Supreme Court Justices have already rejected other a******n cases from Indiana and Louisiana.
In August 2018, the 11th Circuit confirmed that Alabama would not be able to enforce its proposed ban on second-trimester a******ns.

“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” Chief Judge Ed Carnes wrote at the time.

“The primary factfinder is the district court, and we are not it. Our role is to apply the law the Supreme Court has laid down to the facts the district court found. The result is that we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

The Supreme Court was originally meant to consider the case in March.

Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his agreement with the decision to deny the Alabama hearing, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents states from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruled that states must not infringe on a woman’s access to a******n through any “undue burden,” according to Washington Examiner.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.