Skip to comments.Supreme Court will not allow North Dakota law banning abortions as early as 6 weeks(shortened)
Posted on 01/25/2016 10:16:07 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Full Title: "The Supreme Court will not allow North Dakota to enforce a law banning abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected as early as 6 weeks into a pregnancy"
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to review lower court rulings overturning North Dakota's ban on abortion at six weeks of pregnancy -- before many women know they're pregnant.
North Dakota's Republican-dominated legislature approved the law in 2013, though it was quickly put on hold after the state's lone abortion clinic, the Red River Clinic in Fargo, filed a lawsuit that July.
Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple has called the law "a legitimate attempt by a state Legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade." But opponents called it an attempt to shutter the clinic that is backed in its legal fight by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
Those darn conservative justices, there they go again!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That was an easy one to call.
who made this decision. it does not say
How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?
Don’t know.. Decision just came out.
The law is wrong, and the court is wrong.
The Constitution absolutely, explicitly, requires equal protection for EVERY innocent person, in every state in the Union. No exceptions based on age or anything or any other arbitrary thing.
Accessories to murder
The Supreme Court denied cert i.e. refused to hear the case. When that happens, the most recent lower court ruling is the applicable one.
A heartbeat means there is life, whether the woman know she is pregnant or not. This is the court saying life doesn’t matter, and the constitution doesn’t matter. I reject this.
Yet another reason we need Ted Cruz as president. He will nominate judges that will not make rulings like this.
You are so right. We need to change the court.
I was ever so slightly hopeful of a Roe v. Wade overturn, but am not seeing it after refusing to take this.
The Supreme Court didn't render any decision; they just refused to hear the State's appeal from the lower court's order. As far as I can tell, there were no recorded dissents.
At least they could have had the decency to come out on the steps during the March for Life and flip the marchers the bird in person.
put cruz ON the court
10th amendment needs to be invoked.
So, so, so very SICK of the Supreme Court enabling infanticide.
Congress can pass a law defending the life of a person from conception. If DNA can prove innocence in a court of law, why can’t DNA prove personhood from conception?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.