Skip to main content

Supreme Court will not take up challenge to restrictive Arkansas abortion law. The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up an Arkansas law that challengers say could end the use of medication abortions in the state. The law requires doctors who provide medication abortions to have a contract with a specialist who has hospital admitting privileges. Abortion providers say the requirement is burdensome and unnecessary because complications are extremely rare from the two-pill regimen that is used in the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and any that do arise can be handled by a local emergency room or hospital. The state has only three abortion clinics, and two of those offer only medication abortions. So the law could leave only one clinic, in Little Rock, to serve the entire state--and it would have to offer only surgical abortions. Challengers can still ask a judge to strike down the law, but may have to prove how many women could be affected by it. U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker temporarily blocked the law, concluding that any medical benefit from the contract requirement would be “incrementally small” while the burden on women’s access to abortion would be substantial. The law was “a solution in search of a problem,” the judge said. Two years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 to overturn a similar Texas law that required doctors who provided abortions to have admitting privileges in a local hospital. The Texas law “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority. The admitting-privileges requirement in Texas cut the number of abortion providers by half. But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the Arkansas law. That court said Baker had “failed to make factual findings estimating the number of women burdened by the statute”--those who would either forgo or postpone an abortion because of the law. Planned Parenthood said in its petition to the Supreme Court that was an approach the majority had rejected in the Texas decision, and that the burden in Arkansas would be extreme. “The restriction would eliminate entirely a safe, common method of early abortion and force all women in the state to travel (twice) to a single provider in Little Rock to have a surgical procedure — thereby preventing many women from obtaining an abortion altogether and delaying many others,” the petition said. “Worse yet, it would do so even where a medication abortion is medically indicated or strongly preferred.” But the Supreme Court declined to accept the challenge, without noted dissent even from liberal justices who are supportive of abortion rights. The case is Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley.

Supreme Court will not take up challenge to restrictive Arkansas abortion law.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up an Arkansas law that challengers say could end the use of medication abortions in the state.

The law requires doctors who provide medication abortions to have a contract with a specialist who has hospital admitting privileges. Abortion providers say the requirement is burdensome and unnecessary because complications are extremely rare from the two-pill regimen that is used in the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and any that do arise can be handled by a local emergency room or hospital.

The state has only three abortion clinics, and two of those offer only medication abortions. So the law could leave only one clinic, in Little Rock, to serve the entire state--and it would have to offer only surgical abortions.

Challengers can still ask a judge to strike down the law, but may have to prove how many women could be affected by it.

U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker temporarily blocked the law, concluding that any medical benefit from the contract requirement would be “incrementally small” while the burden on women’s access to abortion would be substantial. The law was “a solution in search of a problem,” the judge said.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 to overturn a similar Texas law that required doctors who provided abortions to have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

The Texas law “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority.

The admitting-privileges requirement in Texas cut the number of abortion providers by half.

But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the Arkansas law.

That court said Baker had “failed to make factual findings estimating the number of women burdened by the statute”--those who would either forgo or postpone an abortion because of the law.

Planned Parenthood said in its petition to the Supreme Court that was an approach the majority had rejected in the Texas decision, and that the burden in Arkansas would be extreme.

“The restriction would eliminate entirely a safe, common method of early abortion and force all women in the state to travel (twice) to a single provider in Little Rock to have a surgical procedure — thereby preventing many women from obtaining an abortion altogether and delaying many others,” the petition said. “Worse yet, it would do so even where a medication abortion is medically indicated or strongly preferred.”

But the Supreme Court declined to accept the challenge, without noted dissent even from liberal justices who are supportive of abortion rights.

The case is Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Bring You Brief Series of Sanctions Against Uganda Government Officials.

📸: Gen Abel Kandiho. On 9-December-2021, USA slapped sanctions against the then CMI Commander Gen Abel Kandiho. 📸: Gen Kale Kayihura. On 9-December-2022, UK slapped sanctions against former Police Boss Gen Kale Kayihura. 📸: Commissioner General of Prisons, Johnson Byabashaija. Again on this 4-December-2023, the same USA has slapped sanctions against Uganda Prisons Commander Johnson Byabashaija over alleged torture and human rights abuses in Prisons across Uganda. We ask, has USA and UK made December as an LCM to slap sanctions against high ranking government officials in Uganda even when the sanctions just remain on paper without deeper investigations to ascertain logical conclusions or remedy to that effect ?. #iip_updates  #Information_is_Power  #we_inform_the_uninformed

How to Host a Website for Free From Your PC or Laptop.

Why pay for a web hosting service when your old computer can do the same thing? Learn how to self-host your site. If you're planning to launch a website but don't want to pay recurring monthly or annual hosting fees, you can use any old laptop or desktop PC to host a website for free. It's a great way to utilize your old system instead of throwing it away. In this guide, we will install and set up services on our 10-year-old laptop to host a WordPress, Joomla, or custom HTML or PHP-based website with a free SSL certificate. MAKEUSEOF VIDEO OF THE DAY Things You Will Need to Host a Website Following are the pre-requisites to host a website for free from home with just your computer: An old laptop or PC running Ubuntu Server. A registered domain name for your website Ethernet cable to connect the laptop or PC to router for reliable and fast connection Step 1: Update and Upgrade the Packages After  installing Ubuntu Server on your computer , execute the following c...

WHERE IS MINISTER OF SEX SIMON LOKODO?. (He deserves a battle of soda from me! Ministe`r esalanga mabee. He is quick to run after Mrs Dr Stella Nyanzi and other Opposition elements. Government aza aza edo zuu vaa kpere bua). Anyway, below is the article! POLICE OFFICER AKOL ESTHER CHARGED OF BEING A PUBLIC NUISANCE Naughty Officer Officer who embarrassed police after leaking nude photo charged 13.03.2018 She serves in the 'Very Important Persons Protection Unit'  Akol Esther  (Courtesy) A female police officer whose nude photo surfaced on social media has been charged of being a public nuisance. Akol Esther serves in the Very Important Persons Protection Unit (VIPPU) of the police force. Kampala Metropolitan Police spokesperson Luke Owoyesigire says Akol Esther might be demoted or expelled from the police force if found guilty of circulating nude photos. Police court is yet to announce date when Akol Esther is expected to appear for a hearing. This comes at a time when Pornography Control Committee is taking tough measures against persons circulating pornography content. The committee warned and promised to arrest persons who will circulate pornographic content.

POLICE OFFICER AKOL ESTHER CHARGED OF BEING A PUBLIC NUISANCE Naughty Officer Officer who embarrassed police after leaking nude photo charged 13.03.2018 She serves in the 'Very Important Persons Protection Unit' Akol Esther  (Courtesy) A female police officer whose nude photo surfaced on social media has been charged of being a public nuisance. Akol Esther serves in the Very Important Persons Protection Unit (VIPPU) of the police force. Kampala Metropolitan Police spokesperson Luke Owoyesigire says  Akol Esther might be demoted or expelled from the police force if found guilty of circulating nude photos . Police court is yet to announce date when Akol Esther is expected to appear for a hearing. This comes at a time when Pornography Control Committee is taking tough measures against persons circulating pornography content. The committee warned and promised to arrest persons who will circulate pornographic content.