Despite some headlines you are reading, all the Supreme Court did today was to decline to hear the case (Horne v. Isaacson) concerning Arizona’s 20-week limit on abortion procedures. And the Court declined to hear the case without comments. The case only dealt with a request to lift the injunction that prohibited its enforcement while the litigation continued. The Court is likely to see this case again.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief asking the court to take on the case.
But the move is not surprising for those who watch the Court closely. Similar laws have been passed in 12 states and the debate on them is still ongoing. Given its less than stellar record on life issues, the Justices have recently been reluctant to take on a case of such magnitude before there has been ample debate.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said the Court was wrong in taking on Roe v. Wade at the time it did and in issuing such an ample ruling. At a University of Chicago Law School forum, she said the Court went “too far, too fast.” It is clear looking back she regrets the culture war that has come out of the disastrous ruling. So today’s decision is not a surprise, and it does not make all 20-week pro-life laws unconstitutional. The battle will continue going forward, and CWA will be leading the charge for the safety and dignity of women and the unborn.
The Court’s refusal to hear the case is, nevertheless, bad news for women and the unborn in Arizona as the case comes from the radical Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which said, as expected, that the law was unconstitutional. But the decision is limited to the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and has no effect outside of it. The only other similar law within its jurisdiction is Idaho’s law.
Click here for more articles from our Legal Blurb Blog.
______Follow Mario on Twitter @LegalBlurbBlog