In New Abortion Plea To High Court, Arizona Seeks To Reinstate Penalties
Arizona's law would impose criminal penalties on anyone performing an abortion because of genetic abnormalities in the fetus. Meanwhile, Wisconsin's attorney general says if the Supreme Court overturns federal protections for the right to an abortion, he won't prosecute under a state ban that would take effect.
The Wall Street Journal:
Arizona Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate Abortion Law
The state of Arizona asked the Supreme Court Tuesday for an emergency order reinstating a law passed earlier this year that imposes criminal penalties for abortions performed because of fetal genetic abnormalities. Lower courts, noting the law likely violated Supreme Court precedents entitling women to end unwanted pregnancies, have blocked enforcement of the measure while a challenge filed by abortion providers and allied nonprofit organizations proceeds. (Bravin, 12/14)
And from Wisconsin —
AP:
Wisconsin Attorney General Won't Enforce Any Abortion Ban
Wisconsin’s Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul said in an interview Tuesday that he would not investigate or prosecute anyone for having an abortion should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and a currently unenforceable state ban takes effect. The comments to The Associated Press are Kaul’s strongest to date about how he would react to the Supreme Court undoing the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. A Wisconsin ban enacted in 1849 has been unenforceable under Roe v. Wade, but would take effect again if conservative Supreme Court justices decide to overrule Roe, as they suggested during oral arguments this month in a case over Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortions. A decision is expected this summer. (Bauer, 12/14)
In related news about abortion rights —
Los Angeles Times:
Supreme Court On Verge Of Ending Right To Abortion
The Supreme Court is ending the year starkly split on abortion, with the five conservatives showing all signs they will overturn Roe vs. Wade and let state lawmakers decide whether women may legally end a pregnancy. Until this fall, it was at least possible to foresee a moderate-conservative majority coming together to set new limits on abortions later in a pregnancy, while upholding the constitutional protection for a woman to end a pregnancy in the early months. (Savage, 12/15)
Mississippi Clarion Ledger:
Ahead Of Supreme Court Decision, Pro-Choice Groups Map Path Forward
Even as pro-choice activists protested here at “Ground Zero” for the nation’s fight over abortion, they were already shaping strategies for a post-Roe v. Wade world. National pro-choice organizers at NARAL had wanted Mississippians to demonstrate in Washington, D.C., outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Dec. 1 as the nation’s high court heard arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case challenges the state’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. (Cunningham, 12/13)
Delaware News Journal:
Seaford Ordinance Appears To Circumvent Delaware Abortion Law
Only four days after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a restrictive Texas law banning abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, a small city in western Sussex County passed an ordinance that would further regulate abortion services. In a 3-2 vote Tuesday, Seaford City Council passed a measure that would require the burial or cremation of “fetal remains” from any abortion performed in the city. Critics argue the ordinance creates extra barriers for women trying to access abortion services. The executive director of the ACLU in Delaware said the ordinance imposes "a host of unnecessary administrative and financial burdens" on clinics legally performing abortions. (Lytle, 12/14)
