Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge refuses to stop abortion ban from going into effect Thursday
Mississippi Today ^ | July 5, 2022 | Bobby Harrison

Posted on 07/05/2022 2:47:41 PM PDT by Morgana

Chancery Judge Debbra Halford refused to block Mississippi’s abortion ban from going into effect on Thursday despite a 1998 ruling from the Supreme Court saying the state Constitution grants abortion rights.

Just hours after a 45-minute Tuesday morning hearing, Halford issued the eight-page decision ruling on Tuesday afternoon refusing to side with the state’s only abortion provider, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which had requested a temporary restraining order to prevent laws from going into effect banning most abortions in Mississippi.

Abortion rights groups had argued that laws banning abortions in the state could not go into effect until a 1998 state Supreme Court decision, Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Kirk Fordice, was overturned. The 1998 decision, the abortion rights supporters argued, could only be overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

But in ruling against the abortion rights groups, Halford said that it is likely that the current state Supreme Court will uphold the Mississippi laws banning most abortions now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is not a protected right under the federal Constitution.

Halford wrote that since a right to an abortion as granted by the U.S. Constitution “is no longer the law of the land, reliance upon Fordice almost certainly will not be well-founded when pursuing this case in the (state) Supreme Court.”

We are going to review the decision and consider our options,” said Jackson attorney Rob McDuff of the Mississippi Center for Justice. McDuff and Hillary Schneller, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, represented Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Tuesday’s hearing in the Hinds County Chancery Court building.

They argued that Halford should halt the abortions ban from taking effect because the 1998 ruling by the state Supreme Court was the law of the land in Mississippi. It would take a new ruling from the state Supreme to reverse the 1998 ruling.

“The primary issue before you is whether the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court is binding and we clearly believe it is,” McDuff said during the hearing.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS: abortion; debbrahalford; ketanjibrownjackson; mississippi; paulryan; plannedparenthood; prolife; righttolife; roevswade; scotus; wisconsin

1 posted on 07/05/2022 2:47:41 PM PDT by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

And the unborn in Mississippi have reason to hope!


2 posted on 07/05/2022 2:58:26 PM PDT by frogjerk (I will not do business with fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

It’s totally disingenuous for the pro-aborts to claim that the Mississipi constitution guarantees abortion rights based on the Fordice case. In that case, the MS supreme court explicitly said that they were interpreting the state constitution analogously to what the SCOTUS did in Roe v Wade.

“Just as the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the federal constitutional right to privacy protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, we find that the state constitutional right to privacy includes an implied right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.”
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1166705.html

If you take away Roe, the house of cards falls.


3 posted on 07/05/2022 2:58:52 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
despite a 1998 ruling from the Supreme Court saying the state Constitution grants abortion rights.

Read Article VI. Per the Supremacy Clause, basically if it's not allowed by the federal constitution then it isn't allowed by state constitutions. The judge is right not to delay the abortion ban.

4 posted on 07/05/2022 3:02:41 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

One of the reasons Americans disdain politicians and judges is this stuff, from both sides depending upon the day.

Trump stops terrorist nations from getting illegals into the US, little judge on the West Coast stops it with an injunction, but soon after that a writ of mandamus or other ruling stops the illegals again, then an appeals court overrules it and two or three more levels do conflicting rulings.

Problem: The SCOTUS is supposed to be the final word, not the little judges all over the country under the Court.

Michigan already said Dem Gov Whitmer, AG, and at least a dozen county prosecutors said they will refuse to follow the law if it curtails abortions.
Sanctuary again????

I have some laws I don’t wish to follow. That’s okay, right?


5 posted on 07/05/2022 3:02:48 PM PDT by frank ballenger (You have summoned up a thundercloud. You're gonna hear from me. Anthem by Leonard Cohen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

What part of states rights do they not understand?


6 posted on 07/05/2022 3:10:29 PM PDT by roving (Blue Lives Matter More Than Children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frank ballenger

“I have some laws I don’t wish to follow. That’s okay, right?”

As long as you don’t get caught. That’s the American way!


7 posted on 07/05/2022 3:15:29 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

One of the things that the Left doesn’t like about this
ruling, is that this current SCOTUS crew does not see the
SCOTUS as being the absolute authority on things like this
that that it has not been given the authority to decide.

States rule on things like this, because they are closer
to the governed.

The Left wants an overbearing SCOTUS for their future plans.


8 posted on 07/05/2022 3:17:45 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I pledge allegiance the flag of the U S of A, and to the REPUBLIC for which stands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

The right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution? Really? Which amendment is that?


9 posted on 07/05/2022 3:19:43 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson