By John Noland
As it is a hallmark of the American legal system, justice is
conferred based on the outcome of a war of words. There have been two hundred plus years of
debate over a document of initially 4,543 words. This grayscale of ambiguity in syntax and
intention is what drives the discussion and decision of law in America. In accordance with such vaunted tradition,
the United States Supreme Court decided not to block a recent Texas abortion
law.
In July
2013, after a great deal of argument, protesting, and Texas state senator Wendy
Davis’s cinematic and impassioned filibuster, the Texas Senate approved a piece
of legislation containing a bundle of measures aimed at restricting state
abortions. Under the law, pregnancies
can no longer be terminated after twenty weeks, after a study controversially
declared that fetuses are pain-sensitive at that time. More significantly, the legislation requires
“doctors performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital
within 30 miles of the abortion clinic” (MacLaggan). Supporters argue that this would lead to
safer, less painful procedures, while opponents saw this as a means of limiting
abortions by shuttering clinics around the state, and one that would
specifically hurt rural women.
Indeed,
District Court Judge Lee Yeakel agreed, throwing out the section of the law
mandating admitting privileges, terming it a “substantial obstacle” for women
seeking to utilize their constitutional right to end a pregnancy. Well-publicized, political issues such as
this rarely are decided at such a comparatively low judicial level, and Judge
Yeakel acknowledged that such a law was “going to be decided definitively not
by this court, but by either the Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United
States” (Eckholm). The ruling was quickly
contested, and an appellate panel declared, in opposition to Yeakel’s decision,
that the Texas law was legal, arguing the new parameters were allowable, as the
Supreme Court has permitted restrictions so long as they do not amount to an
“undue burden” for a woman seeking an abortion.
Once again,
the varying interpretations of the legal language provided the judiciary food
for thought, and the Supreme Court took up a study of the issue. After a week of consideration, Justice Scalia
led a narrow majority to declare that the law would not be blocked
immediately. He wrote in his opinion
that “there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that [not blocking the
law] was a clear violation of accepted legal standards,” and that the clinics
would have to abide by the Circuit’s decision, as the appellate board
had not “clearly and demonstrably erred” (Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex.
Surgical Health Services v Abbott 4, 1). In his dissent, Justice Breyer chose to analyze
the practical context of the law, submitting that women left unable to receive
the procedure would be forced to travel in “some cases 100 miles or more…to
obtain a safe abortion, or else not to obtain one at all” (Ibid 7). By this logic, the law could possibly be
considered to establish an “undue burden” on the women seeking to terminate a
pregnancy. Conversely, Alito’s argument
was more philosophical and historically guided, in saying that “it would flout
core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without
asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional” (Ibid 3). Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor
joined Justice Breyer in dissent, and Alito and Thomas backed Scalia’s opinion,
leaving Roberts and Kennedy to have “presumably voted with those three,
because it would have taken five votes to act definitively on the plea”
(Denniston). The Court’s refusal to
vacate the stay is not the end of the trajectory for this “difficult, sensitive, and controversial legal
matter,” in the words of Justice Breyer.
Essentially, the petition for the
Supreme Court to vacate the stay was a last-minute attempt to keep the law from
taking effect. In refusing to block the
legislation, the Court handed the case back to the Circuit Court, which will
examine the law’s constitutionality in a more in-depth manner. If the contentious history of abortion
decisions can be any guide, the issue will later “return to the Supreme
Court for an ultimate test of its validity” (Denniston). This quick study of the law was a rare case,
meant to be a test of an important piece of legislation before it could become
law. However, the American legal process
is remarkably thorough, patient, and methodical, and this will not be the final
word on this issue. The consideration of
this law will be a drawn-out affair, and will likely serve as an important
precedent for the constitutionality of abortion restrictions.
Bibliography
Denniston, Lyle.
"Texas Abortion Law Left in Effect." SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog.com, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Eckholm, Erik.
"Judge in Texas Partly Rejects Abortion Law." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 28 Oct. 2013. Web.
19 Nov. 2013.
MacLaggan,
Corrie. "Texas Passes Abortion Restriction Bill, Governor Certain to
Sign." Reuters. Thomson Reuters,
13 July 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical
Health Services v. Abbott, 571 U.S. (2013), http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Texas-opinions-11-19-13.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment