How Will Trump s Three Supreme Court Picks Affect New Challenge to Roe v. Wade?
On 5/19/21 at 9:02 AM EDT
Newsweek.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women s Health Organization, the court will consider a 2018 Mississippi law that forbids abortions after 15 weeks on the grounds that a fetus at that stage is viable outside the womb. Jackson Women s Health Organization successfully argued to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks and the court blocked the law.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. If the court upholds the law, it could open the door for other states to introduce strict restrictions on abortion.
Roe v Wade: More states are expected to pass anti-abortion bills ahead of monumental Supreme Court case
msn.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from msn.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Texas Passes Bill That Would Create Anti-Abortion Vigilantes Emily Shugerman © Provided by The Daily Beast Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast / Photos via Getty
Texas lawmakers have sent Gov. Greg Abbott a bill that would allow anyone in the state to sue over an abortion performed past six weeks essentially turning right-to-lifers into courthouse vigilantes.
The law is a twist on the increasingly popular “heartbeat” laws that ban abortions past the date that a heartbeat can be detected usually around six weeks’ gestation. (Experts say most embryos do not have a heart at this point, and that the technology is likely picking up an electric signal flutter.) Nine states have passed such six-week bans since 2013; all have been challenged in court and have yet to go into effect.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
This story was originally published by ProPublica.
Ashley Lamendola was still a teen when medical staff at St. Petersburg General Hospital delivered the awful news that would change her life forever: Her newborn son, Hunter, had suffered profound brain damage and would do little more than breathe without help.
“It was like an atomic bomb went off in my life,” she said.
Lamendola believed the hospital was partly responsible for Hunter’s birth injuries. But Florida is one of two states that shield doctors and hospitals from most legal actions arising from births that go catastrophically wrong. Lamendola filed a lawsuit against St. Petersburg General anyway, and when it appeared she was gaining traction, the hospital advanced an extraordinary argument.
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.