|
 The justices declined without comment to hear an appeal by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of a lower court ruling that
upheld the law after a federal judge previously had struck it down
as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee
of free speech.
The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and is closely
divided on abortion rights.
On March 4, the court is scheduled to hear its first major abortion
case in three years in a dispute over the legality of a
Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on doctors
who do abortions.
The Supreme Court in 1973 recognized a woman's right to obtain an
abortion under the U.S. Constitution. In a 1992 ruling reaffirming
that right, the court endorsed so-called "informed consent" laws
that require women to be given certain information before they can
obtain abortions.
"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court will allow
this blatant violation of the First Amendment and fundamental
medical ethics to stand," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU in
reaction to the Kentucky case.
Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican who led the defense of
the law, applauded the decision, saying it "gives final affirmation
to the commonsense notion that patients should be well equipped with
relevant information before making important medical decisions."
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women's Surgical Center,
Kentucky's only licensed abortion clinic, as well as doctors who
work there shortly after the law was passed in 2017.
Kentucky requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the
ultrasound and position the screen so the woman can view the images
of the fetus. The medical staff are required to describe what the
images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or
appendages visible. They are also required to make audible the sound
of the fetal heartbeat.
The law requires the physicians to continue with the process even if
the patient objects and shows signs of distress. Doctors can be
fined and referred to the state's medical licensing board if they
fail to comply with the law.
[to top of second column] |
On the Louisiana law case next year, the high court's ruling could
lead to new curbs on access to abortion. Numerous Republican-backed
measures restricting abortion have been passed at the state level in
recent years.
The Louisiana case will test the willingness of the court, which
includes two conservative justices appointed by Republican President
Donald Trump, to uphold laws that lower courts have ruled
unconstitutional. The court has shifted to the right after Justice
Anthony Kennedy, a decisive vote in favor of abortion rights,
retired in 2018 and was replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh,
who has a thin judicial record on the issue.
The Louisiana law requires that doctors who perform abortions have a
difficult-to-obtain arrangement called "admitting privileges" at a
hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. Challengers
say the regulation would lead to two of the state's three clinics
closing down.
In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked a California law requiring
clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the
availability of abortions paid for by the state, finding that it
violated the free speech rights of the facilities. In that 5-4
ruling along ideological grounds, the court's conservative justices
were in the majority.
A federal judge in 2017 struck down the law but in an April 2019
ruling the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
declared it lawful.
In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected a bid by North Carolina to
revive a similar law that had been struck down. A similar law in
Texas was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2012.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Grant McCool)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |
