After three hours of debate on Monday a majority seemed to be emerging to allow associations to tackle this legislation in court. But the Court does not seem decided however to suspend the application of the text.
By
Signed in May by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas abortion law came into force in early September. It is not only repressive, forbidding the procedure beyond six weeks of pregnancy. Through its unusual terms and its vertiginous implications, it was destined to end up before the Supreme Court. Monday 1 st November the nine judges have considered two complaints were not about the right to abortion itself, but about the possibility to challenge in court the Texas law. Meanwhile, in Texas, the clinics have drastically reduced their activities and pregnant women often resort to intervention in neighboring states. The judges called it “the chilling effect” of the law.
After three hours of passionate debate, it was unclear Monday if the Court was prepared to reconsider his own position taken in early September and to suspend the application of the Texas law. However, a majority seemed to be emerging, over the issues in favor of the possibility for organizations to attack this legislation before the Texas courts. It is only a component in a long battle with multiple episodes. The coming months promise to explosives, while conservatives dominate the Supreme Court (six against three).
The Texas law prohibits the voluntary interruption of pregnancy (VIP) from the time the beat of the embryo’s heart can be detected, about six weeks. Almost a general prohibition: 85% to 90% of abortions reached concerning a pregnancy beyond that period. The law aims to powerfully deterrent. It makes no exceptions for rape or incest. Above all, it delegates responsibility for its application to citizens. These are called to report to justice any person who contributed to an abortion, directly (doctor, nurse) or very indirect (taxi or bus driver who would lead the patient to the clinic). This accusation can fetch up to 10,000 dollars (8,600 euros) for each assumed “accomplice”. Another aspect staggering of legislation: it is not the plaintiff to prove the alleged offense, but the accused to defend himself. If the latter is convicted, he must repay the plaintiff’s legal costs.
A law “extraordinarily dangerous”
An Austin judge imposed the suspension of this law in early October, stressing that “women were illegally prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways protected by the constitution.” But another judge on appeal overturned that decision. Highest court of appeal, the Supreme Court refused to block the 1 st September the application of Texas law. The next day, Joe Biden landed in first defender of reproductive rights, publishing a press dry this” unprecedented attack “against women, “releasing a non-constitutional chaos.” Citing an “error” of the Supreme Court, the President announced the will of the federal government to challenge the Texas law in court. The Justice Department was mobilized. On Monday, Elizabeth Prelogar, the new representative of the Government (general solicitor) to the Court, held that the Texas law was “extraordinarily dangerous for [the] constitutional structure” and that the government “has a sovereign interest in defending the supremacy federal law. ” But some conservative judges seemed to doubt the legitimacy of such federal intervention.
You have 35.64% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.