“The Supreme Court allowed Texas’ law to remain, but hasn’t issued a final ruling on its constitutionality”

“The Supreme Court rejected a request to remand Texas’ six-week abortion law back (to) a federal district court Thursday, marking another setback for advocates who have been fighting to strike down the controversial measure.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer dissented from the decision, which returns the issue to a state court for additional procedural determinations.” 

The bill, known as a “heartbeat” law, has fueled the already fiery abortion debate and prompted speculation about the court’s disposition towards Roe v. Wade.

Last month, the court allowed Texas’ law to remain in place while maintaining a narrow legal path for abortion providers.”

“Last month’s ruling did not provide a final word on the constitutionality of Texas’ law. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh backed Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in full.

The court allowed the Texas law to remain in effect while it heard a challenge about whether parties may bring suit against it before the state has actually taken enforcement actions consistent with the law.

Comment: So, we wait to see if SCOTUS will reverse or modify Roe. pl

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-texas-ruling-january

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to “The Supreme Court allowed Texas’ law to remain, but hasn’t issued a final ruling on its constitutionality”

  1. Babeltuap says:

    There is a line where it goes from cells to a heart beat. The law forces advocates against the law to admit there is a point where it is no longer just a “lump of cells.” It has this little little thing beating like a hammer telling you so.

Comments are closed.