US High Court Rejects 'Callous and Unconstitutional' Abortion Ban
'Women should not be forced to run to court, year after year, in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights and access to critical health care.'

"The justices on Monday declined to reconsider a lower court ruling that says the law violates a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb," AP reports.
"Viability" of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks.
The Arizona abortion ban, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in April 2012, outlawed abortions after 20 weeks.
"The Supreme Court soundly declined to review the Ninth Circuit's sound decision that Arizona's abortion ban is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing precedent," said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which originally filed the challenge to the law along with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2012. "This ensures that no Arizona women's lives or health are harmed by this callous and unconstitutional law."
"But women should not be forced to run to court, year after year, in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights and access to critical health care," Northup continues. "Our fundamental rights are not up for debate and cannot be legislated away by politicians who are hell bent on restricting access to the full range of reproductive health care."
The case Horne v. Isaacson challenged the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals ruling that struck down the law saying it was a flat ban that violated a woman's right to "viability." Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier.
"The Court's reaction to the new Arizona abortion case had been eagerly awaited, for two reasons," SCOTUS blog reports. "[I]t was a test of whether the Court would relax its repeated view that states cannot flatly ban abortion in the period before a fetus could live outside the pregnant woman's body, and it was a test of whether the Justices would clear the way for state legislatures to experiment with bans on abortions at increasingly earlier stages in pregnancy."
"Because the Court chose not to review the case, nothing final can be read into that denial, except perhaps that the Court is not ready to reopen the whole question about the continuing validity of its precedents on women's abortion rights," SCOTUS blog adds.
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

"The justices on Monday declined to reconsider a lower court ruling that says the law violates a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb," AP reports.
"Viability" of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks.
The Arizona abortion ban, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in April 2012, outlawed abortions after 20 weeks.
"The Supreme Court soundly declined to review the Ninth Circuit's sound decision that Arizona's abortion ban is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing precedent," said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which originally filed the challenge to the law along with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2012. "This ensures that no Arizona women's lives or health are harmed by this callous and unconstitutional law."
"But women should not be forced to run to court, year after year, in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights and access to critical health care," Northup continues. "Our fundamental rights are not up for debate and cannot be legislated away by politicians who are hell bent on restricting access to the full range of reproductive health care."
The case Horne v. Isaacson challenged the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals ruling that struck down the law saying it was a flat ban that violated a woman's right to "viability." Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier.
"The Court's reaction to the new Arizona abortion case had been eagerly awaited, for two reasons," SCOTUS blog reports. "[I]t was a test of whether the Court would relax its repeated view that states cannot flatly ban abortion in the period before a fetus could live outside the pregnant woman's body, and it was a test of whether the Justices would clear the way for state legislatures to experiment with bans on abortions at increasingly earlier stages in pregnancy."
"Because the Court chose not to review the case, nothing final can be read into that denial, except perhaps that the Court is not ready to reopen the whole question about the continuing validity of its precedents on women's abortion rights," SCOTUS blog adds.
_____________________

"The justices on Monday declined to reconsider a lower court ruling that says the law violates a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb," AP reports.
"Viability" of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks.
The Arizona abortion ban, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in April 2012, outlawed abortions after 20 weeks.
"The Supreme Court soundly declined to review the Ninth Circuit's sound decision that Arizona's abortion ban is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing precedent," said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which originally filed the challenge to the law along with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2012. "This ensures that no Arizona women's lives or health are harmed by this callous and unconstitutional law."
"But women should not be forced to run to court, year after year, in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights and access to critical health care," Northup continues. "Our fundamental rights are not up for debate and cannot be legislated away by politicians who are hell bent on restricting access to the full range of reproductive health care."
The case Horne v. Isaacson challenged the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals ruling that struck down the law saying it was a flat ban that violated a woman's right to "viability." Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier.
"The Court's reaction to the new Arizona abortion case had been eagerly awaited, for two reasons," SCOTUS blog reports. "[I]t was a test of whether the Court would relax its repeated view that states cannot flatly ban abortion in the period before a fetus could live outside the pregnant woman's body, and it was a test of whether the Justices would clear the way for state legislatures to experiment with bans on abortions at increasingly earlier stages in pregnancy."
"Because the Court chose not to review the case, nothing final can be read into that denial, except perhaps that the Court is not ready to reopen the whole question about the continuing validity of its precedents on women's abortion rights," SCOTUS blog adds.
_____________________

