The Mississippi state House is currently considering a law banning all abortions except if the life of the mother is in danger. This is similar to a bill passed by the South Dakota legislature on which I commented a couple of days ago. As with the South Dakota law, my guess is that the legislators do not seriously expect the Supreme Court to uphold the law. It's great electoral politics though: As long as lower courts reject the bill, the lawmakers' pro-life supporters will be energized. Until the Supreme Court decides, this should be good for two elections or so.
The fact that Mississippi now jumped on the anti-Roe bandwaggon ads an interesting twist to the issue. If more states decide to bring legislative challenges to Roe v. Wade, the more likely it is that different federal appeals courts will make different decisions. Now, according to Supreme Court rules, one of the factors that justices consider when they decide whether or not to hear a case is lower court conflict. If the US Court of Appeals for the 5th circuit (which contains Mississippi) upholds the Mississippi law, and the appeals court for the 8th circuit overturns the SD law, then it is pretty likely that the Supreme Court will hear the case. Still, my bet is that the appeals courts will all overturn state anti-abortion laws that don't provide exceptions for cases of rape or health threats. The precedent is simply too clear, and it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold the laws. (Of course, some appeals court judges may want the Supreme Court to make a clear statement against the laws and uphold them just to force the Court's hand. We'll see.)
Another twist: At The Moderate Voice, Justin Gardner notes that the Mississippi House committee reporting the bill included an amendment that requires the state to provide free education and health care to every child born in the state. This looks like a poison pill, so the law may not actually pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment