The House aims to protect abortion when the Supreme Court allows a ban on Texas.

Eight years ago, even when Democrats controlled the White House and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was seen as a credible Supreme Court vote to protect abortion rights. .

Monterey Park Democrats, along with Sen. Richard J. Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Began writing a bill in 2013 that would legalize abortion nationwide for approximately 24 weeks of pregnancy. The decision eliminates federal law and the ability of Republican-led states to block access to procedures before the fetus is eligible.

Democrats are now taking the bill off the shelf to the Supreme Court – which has moved sharply to the right with three Trump appointments in recent years. Texas has banned abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy..

“We thought the day would come when there would be a draconian law that the Supreme Court would uphold. Now is the time to vote on the floor,” Cho said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco) said the House would vote on the legislation later this month. Chou and his allies have counted 217 yes votes, which is enough. But that is unlikely in the Senate, where supporters believe they have 50 votes, far less than the 60 needed to overcome a file buster.

This bill has been the precedent of the Supreme Court for almost 50 years. Since the 1973 ruling and the follow-up 1992 case, states have been barred from imposing restrictions that place an unnecessary burden on access to abortion before the fetus is viable.

That would undermine Democrats’ policy for Texas law as the nation enters, which would be the biggest abortion debate in three decades.

Opposing the Republican move, Democrats say Democrats are using it as an opportunity to increase access to abortion by overturning existing state laws.

“The Biden Democrats’ anti-democratic attack on Anti-Life, Texas and other Life Protestants proves just how out of touch with the American people,” said Marjorie Dan Felser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.

“The Texas Heartbeat Act is a response to the Supreme Court’s intervention in 50 years that states have a legitimate interest in protecting lives and the right to debate and pass laws that reflect the values ​​of their people,” he said.

Democrats are already taking advantage of Texas law – and copycat efforts are underway in other Republican-controlled states – on the campaign trail, a deterrent that is likely to grow before the 2022 midterm elections.

Government Gavin Newsom warned that if they lose their memorable election A Republican governor could try to enforce a similar law in California.. (The Democratic-controlled legislature will certainly stop such an attempt.)

Several Republican governors, including some who could run for president in 2024, such as Florida Gov. Ron de Santis, said they would urge their state legislature to pass legislation like Texas as soon as possible.

Texas law prohibits abortion once heart activity is detected, which usually occurs within six weeks of pregnancy. Because gestational age is calculated from the person’s last menstrual period, the six weeks of pregnancy are usually two weeks after the mentioned period, or the first possible sign of pregnancy.

State law has nothing to do with any private person, including a doctor or a patient – the right to sue a physician or another person involved in an abortion for violation of the measure. If successful in court, plaintiffs can receive a minimum of 10,000 in fines and legal costs.

Opponents of the law say it could also lead to action against someone who donates to a group that provides access to abortions or an Uber driver who takes a patient to a clinic.

Texas state officials are specifically barred from enforcing the law, a clause that has complicated efforts to stop it.

On Thursday, the U.S. Att. Gen. Merck Garland said the Justice Department is suing Texas, calling the unusual law enforcement mechanism “an unprecedented scheme to ignore the Supreme Court’s concerns about abortion.”

Abortion rights advocates praised the lawsuit but said the administration needed to do more.

“Reproductive freedom already exists, and it’s important that the White House make clear its support for the Women’s Health Protection Act,” said Kirsten Ford, Acting Vice President of Naral Pro Choice USA. “This important legislation is the best way to protect reproductive freedom in Texas and across the country.”

In the Senate, the bill has 48 co-sponsors, and Democrats are hoping to get Republican senators’ votes. Collins, when asked by local TV station WGME about Texas law, indicated that she would support an attempt to codify Roe, but did not explicitly endorse the bill.

Two Senate Democrats, Joe Manchin III of Sense-West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, did not participate in the bill. Casey has said he opposes Roe’s decision, and Manchin opposes abortion rights.

Blumenthal said Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (DN.Y.) should bring the bill to a vote, even if it fails, to force lawmakers to take office. He hopes the issue will push some Democrats to end the movie buster.

“I think my colleagues, perhaps on both sides, will see the urgency and frustration of women in states where similar laws are in place and that could lead to real turmoil,” she said.

In addition to the lack of adequate support in the Senate, even if the Democrats’ bill becomes law, it will likely face a severe legal challenge in the courts.

Democrats say the bill has been cleared by abortion rights groups and their lawyers, who believe it will stand up to scrutiny.

“It has gone through a lot of scrutiny by constitutional lawyers. [who] He thinks it will meet any challenge.

But much will depend on what the Supreme Court does in future cases. Justice is due to review the Mississippi abortion law during this period, and many experts have predicted that the majority could use the decision to rein in or overturn its decision.

If Justice Rowe reverses and says that there is no individual right to abortion, the court can leave Congress without any basis to protect that right which does not exist.

Legal experts say Congress has only two sources of constitutional authority for federal abortion protection law.

The first is the 14th Amendment and its protection of individual rights and freedoms. The amendment authorizes Congress to “enforce” its promises through “appropriate legislation.”

But if the Supreme Court rules that abortion is not a right or liberty through the 14th Amendment, it can strike the new federal law on the grounds that Congress has no such authority.

Alternatively, the result could turn Congress into a “power to control trade between states.” During the 20th century, Congress used this power extensively to protect workers’ rights, civil rights, and the environment. But the more conservative Supreme Court has stepped in to rein in that authority.

In 2012, five justices voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, ruling that Congress had exceeded its commercial power by imposing a national health insurance mandate. The law, however, was saved when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ruled that the mandate could be upheld as a tax measure because it was enforced through tax penalties.

Nevertheless, it is unclear whether a majority of judges will agree that Congress’s commerce authority extends to the protection of abortion doctors and clinics.

The report was co-authored by David G. Savage, a Times staff member in Washington.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: