![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SCOTUS upheld the "partial birth" abortion ban. They said they were not going after Roe, but for all practical purposes they have gutted abortion protections.
How? By stating that the proper method for challenging an abortion statute is by an "as-applied" claim -- in other words, until a woman is actually prohibited from having an abortion by a statute, until "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used." For obvious reasons, this is very bad news. Before now, abortion restrictions were challenged on their face, meaning that they could be challenged (and injunctions sought against their implementations) early on so as to cause the least suffering.
The even worse news? There is no exemption in this ruling for the health of the mother. None. [ETA: There is an exemption to protect the life of the mother.]
Five old men have placed themselves in the position of stating that Congress knows more about proper medical procedures than trained medical professionals.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
How? By stating that the proper method for challenging an abortion statute is by an "as-applied" claim -- in other words, until a woman is actually prohibited from having an abortion by a statute, until "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used." For obvious reasons, this is very bad news. Before now, abortion restrictions were challenged on their face, meaning that they could be challenged (and injunctions sought against their implementations) early on so as to cause the least suffering.
The even worse news? There is no exemption in this ruling for the health of the mother. None. [ETA: There is an exemption to protect the life of the mother.]
Five old men have placed themselves in the position of stating that Congress knows more about proper medical procedures than trained medical professionals.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It is beyond senseless. It's only possible purpose was to hope for a ruling like this one, declaring the state has an interest in causing harm to a woman's health because of some poorly defined interest in fetal life.
From:
no subject
Anyway, thank you for posting this. After hearing about the ruling on the news, I really thought it was no big and that just one procedure was banned.
I've linked to your posts on the topic too because I know I'm not the only one not fully clear on what it means.