Newsbreak

Casualties of the court: Judges in Indiana and Florida halt pro-life laws

abortion+law.mgn

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down some provisions of the Texas HB2 bill seems like it’s set off a chain reaction to other states’ pro-life laws falling.

Florida

In Florida, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued an injunction just hours before a pro-life law was to take effect. The law would have prohibited funding Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions; Hinkle ruled that is unconstitutional, saying:

No court has embraced the defendants’ position. And there is no logic to it. That a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion does not mean a legislature can impose otherwise-unconstitutional conditions on public funding.

NPR also reports on the second provision that Hinkle prevented from taking effect:

The court also blocked a provision that would have required state employees in Florida to inspect the medical records of 50 percent of clinic patients. Planned Parenthood argued that the extensive inspection was a burden to clinics and a privacy violation. Hinkle agreed.

What Hinkle didn’t strike was a provision requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals, which is a law struck down in the Texas decision; however, NPR reports that Planned Parenthood had not challenged that part of the law in this suit, so it did not affect it.

NewDefundAd3

Indiana

Meanwhile, hundreds of miles to the north, a law in Indiana was also stayed at the last minute. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, from the Federal District Court for Southern Indiana, granted an injunction against a law that would have banned abortions on babies shown to have fetal disabilities or genetic anomalies (such as Down syndrome). It also would have banned sex-selection abortions or abortions based on race.  Pratt ruled:

“It is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992) . This right is grounded in the right to privacy  rooted in “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 153; see Casey , 505 U.S. at 846 (“[c]onstitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). (Page 8-9)
She added that Roe v. Wade says the state cannot limit a woman’s right to abortion prior to viability and that made the Indiana law unconstitutional:
[T]he very notion that, pre-viability, a State can examine the basis for a woman’s choice to make this private, personal and difficult decision, if she at some point earlier decided she wants a child as a general matter, is inconsistent with the notion of a right rooted in privacy concerns and a liberty right to make independent decisions. (Page 14).
Thus, both Florida and Indiana saw July open without some pro-life laws taking effect as scheduled. Ultimately, this means more babies will die while litigation is tied up in courtrooms where judges interpret the law  in extraordinary ways.
In Florida, a judge agreed inspecting abortion facility records would be too much of a burden. In Indiana, a judge ruled that a woman pregnant with a girl who wanted a boy can simply abort her daughter without cause.
The degrading of human life that continues to show up in courtrooms nationwide reveals a troubling trend where self-rule is elevated even above the right to life. What these judges seem to forget is that the right to life is a constitutional right in itself, and these rulings deny human beings their own constitutional right to life.
READ NEXT
Comments
To Top

Send this to friend