Colombia's Constitutional Court Legalizes Abortion Until 24 Weeks Of Pregnancy

Reuters reports that yesterday Colombia's Constitutional Court voted 5-4 to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation. This adds to a 2006 ruling that legalized abortion without time limits in cases of rape, fatal fetal deformity and health of the woman. The announcement came through this Spanish language press release from the Court.

Suit By Jewish And Catholic Plaintiffs Challenge "Key To NYC" Vaccination Requirement

A suit raising 1st and 14th Amendment claims was filed this week in a New York federal district court by five Orthodox Jews (including a rabbi and a yeshiva teacher), and by a Catholic  man, challenging New York City's "Key To NYC" program.  Key To NYC requires individuals to be vaccinated for COVID in order to enter restaurants, entertainment venues and fitness facilities. Plaintiffs contend that they have religious objections to the COVID vaccine.  Their religious objections are set out at length in the complaint (full text) in Jane Doe 1 v. Adams, (ED NY, filed 2/7/2022).  Some of the religious objections are similar to those raised in many other cases, i.e. objections to vaccines developed with the the use of fetal cell lines originating from abortions.  However, the religious objections cited by the Jewish plaintiffs include contentions that have not commonly been raised in past litigation. Here are two examples of the cited beliefs:

Submitting to a government dictate that conditions freedom on vaccination is a form of slavery and subjugation. This violates numerous commandments in the Torah that require one to remember and internalize the great Exodus from slavery in ancient Egypt....

Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, better known as the Chasam Sofer (1762 to 1839), an ancestor of John Doe 1’s wife and the leading Orthodox Rabbi in opposition to the Reform Judaism movement, stated the famous aphorism Chadash Assur Min Hatorah: That which is new is prohibited by the Torah. This was specifically aimed at the attempts to overhaul and change ancient traditions and customs, by the followers of Reform Judaism. The notion that healthy people should be viewed as sick until they can prove their innocence by vaccination in order to be part of society is a new concept that is being forced on humanity as part of the “New Normal” and “Great Reset.” This newfangled posture in human relations that is being imposed by force, has no basis in the Torah....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

 

Ohio Law On Disposal Of Tissue After Abortion Is Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Department of Health, (OH Com. Pl, Jan. 31, 2022), an Ohio state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of an Ohio law (SB27) that was to take effect next week which requires embryonic and fetal tissue after a surgical abortion to be cremated or interred. The court held that reproductive autonomy and freedom of choice in health care are fundamental rights under the Ohio Constitution. It also pointed out that the effect of the law is to prevent surgical abortions before 13 weeks of pregnancy. Before that time, embryonic and fetal tissue cannot be separated from other pregnancy tissue which is required to be disposed of as infectious waste and cannot be interred or cremated. The court concluded that there is a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed on their claims that the law violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the state Constitution, and that it is unconstitutionally vague. Christian Post reports on the decision.

Biden and Harris Issue Statement In Support Of Roe v. Wade

Last Saturday (Jan. 22) was the 49th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to abortion.  On Saturday, the White House issued a statement from President Biden and Vice President Harris (full text), saying in part:

The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supports efforts to codify Roe, and we will continue to work with Congress on the Women’s Health Protection Act. All people deserve access to reproductive health care regardless of their gender, income, race, zip code, health insurance status, immigration status, disability, or sexual orientation. And the continued defense of this constitutional right is essential to our health, safety, and progress as a nation.

We must ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have the same fundamental rights that their mothers and grandmothers fought for and won on this day, 49 years ago....

Supreme Court Assures Further Delay In Challenge To Texas Heartbeat Abortion Law

Yesterday, in In re Whole Woman's Health, (Sup.Ct., Jan. 20, 2022),  the U.S. Supreme Court in a brief Order refused to issue a writ of mandamus requested by Texas abortion providers who are seeking a speedy adjudication of the constitutionality of Texas SB8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion law that essentially bans almost all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.  Courts, including the Supreme Court, have refused to enjoin enforcement of the Texas law while its constitutionality is being litigated. Earlier this week, the 5th Circuit assured further delay by certifying a state law issue in the case to the Texas Supreme Court instead of remanding the case to the Texas federal district court for it to act on the constitutional question. (See prior posting.) Yesterday, Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, objecting to the Court's denial of mandamus.  Justice Sotomayor said in part:

Today’s decision shows that any hope that Whole Woman’s Health II might protect the Constitution’s guarantees in this case was illusory. As it turns out, Texas did not even have to amend its law to sidestep the minimal relief this Court left available. Instead, Texas wagered that this Court did not mean what little it said in Whole Woman’s Health II or, at least, that this Court would not stand behind those words, meager as they were. That bet has paid off.... [This Court] accepts yet another dilatory tactic by Texas.... 

This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee.

Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Certifies Texas Heartbeat Abortion Case To Texas Supreme Court

In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (5th Cir., Jan. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether under Texas law, any state officials have authority to take disciplinary action against doctors who violate Texas' Heartbeat Act.  The Act bans abortions if the physician has detected a fetal heartbeat-- usually at around 6 weeks of a pregnancy. The case is on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), which has previously refused to enjoin enforcement of the Texas law while appeals are under way. (See prior posting.) The ability of Texas state officials to enforce the law in some way was crucial to the Supreme Court's decision that abortion providers could sue the state in a challenge to the law. (See prior posting.)  Judge Higginson dissented from the 5th Circuit's decision to certify the question to the Texas Supreme Court, saying in part:

By granting the defendants’ certification motion, we contravene the Supreme Court’s mandate, effectively telling the Court that its opinion was advisory.

Yahoo News reports on the 5th Circuit's decision.

Maneuvering Continues In Challenge To Texas Heartbeat Abortion Law

Procedural maneuvering continues in the challenge by abortion providers to the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. The courts have kept the Texas law in effect while the maneuvering goes on, with Texas seeking to delay proceedings as long as possible and plaintiff abortion providers seeking to speed them forward.  

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the law could be challenged despite the state's attempt to draft the law to prevent anyone from being able to do so because there were still some state officials involved in enforcing the law. The Supreme Court then remanded the case to the 5th Circuit (which had previously allowed the law to remain in effect), instead of to the district court (which had previously enjoined the law while appeals were pending). In the 5th Circuit, Texas is seeking to have the question of whether state officials are in fact still involved in enforcing the law certified to the Texas Supreme Court for resolution, while the abortion providers challenging the law contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that issue. The 5th Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for Friday on the appropriateness of certifying the case, as well as on other jurisdictional questions.

 So yesterday, in In re Whole Woman's Health, (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed 1/3/2022), the plaintiffs in the case filed a petition (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Appeals to remand the case immediately to the district court. Texas Tribune reports on these developments.

More Delays Likely Ahead In Challenge To Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Law

The procedural complexities in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson-- the challenge by abortion providers to Texas' "heartbeat" abortion ban-- have increased as Justice Gorsuch yesterday granted challenger's request to issue a certified copy of the judgment immediately rather than in the normal 25-day time frame.  However Gorsuch remanded the case to the 5th Circuit, rather than to the district court. National Law Journal explains the implications of this action:

In its opposition, Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone argued that the justices’ holding that the four licensing officials could be sued “turned on its tentative resolution of a question of Texas Law, and ‘Texas courts and not [the Supreme Court] are the final arbiters of the meaning of state statutory directions.’” A remand to the district court, he argued, would prevent the four officials from asking the appellate court to certify the state law question of the officials’ enforcement authority to the Texas Supreme Court.

If Texas does indeed ask the appellate court to certify that question to the Texas Supreme Court, resolution of the constitutional challenge to the law will be delayed indefinitely.

Arizona Asks Supreme Court To Lift, Pending Appeal, Injunction Against Its Genetic-Abnormality Abortion Ban

A petition was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a partial stay of a district court injunction that prevents enforcement of Arizona's ban on genetic-abnormality-selective abortions. (See prior posting). The petition (full text) in Brnovich v. Isaacson was filed after the 9th Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal. The petition seeks an injunction while appeals work their way through the appellate courts. SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court filing.

Texas State Court Holds That SB8-- Heartbeat Abortion Law-- Is Unconstitutional

In Van Stean v. Texas Right To Life, (TX Dist. Ct., Dec. 9, 2021), a Texas state trial court issued a declaratory judgment concluding that SB8, the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law, is unconstitutional under the Texas state constitution as well as the 14th Amendment. In a 48-page opinion, it concluded:

A. Standing for uninjured person. SB 8's grant of standing to "any person" to be awarded "no less than $10,000" and a mandatory injunction without showing harm to himself, taken from a person who has not harmed him, violates the Texas Constitution's "open courts" provision and is unconstitutional.

B. Punishment without due process. SB 8's mandate that trial courts "shall" award "no less than $10,000" to an unharmed claimant from a defendant who did him no harm is punishment and not compensation that will deprive persons of property without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

C. Delegation of executive power to private persons. SB 8's grant of enforcement power to "any person" is an unlawful delegation of power to private persons that violates the Texas Constitution's separation of powers provision and is unconstitutional.

Volokh Conspiracy reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Says Texas Heartbeat Abortion Law Can Be Challenged In Court

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2021), held that abortion providers may sue one set of defendants in their challenge to Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. Eight of the Justices (all but Justice Thomas) concluded that Texas still involved one set of state officials in enforcement of the heartbeat abortion ban. Plaintiffs may challenge the statute by suing the state officials who have disciplinary authority over medical licensees who violate the ban. Thus Texas failed to completely insulate the law from pre-enforcement challenge. 

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion arguing in part:

The principal opinion then proposes that the Texas Medical Board may enforce S. B. 8 under §164.055 of the Texas Occupations Code. Thus, on that view, S. B. 8 permits the Medical Board to discipline physicians for violating the statute despite the Act’s command that “the requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively through . . . private civil actions,” “[n]otwithstanding . . . any other law.” .... By its terms, S. B. 8’s saving clause preserves enforcement only of laws that “regulate or prohibit abortion.” 

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan concluded that the Attorney General and court clerks should also be able to be sued in a challenge to the law. His opinion says in part:

The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison....  Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.”... The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, saying in part:

My disagreement with the Court runs far deeper than a quibble over how many defendants these petitioners may sue. The dispute is over whether States may nullify federal constitutional rights by employing schemes like the one at hand. The Court indicates that they can, so long as they write their laws to more thoroughly disclaim all enforcement by state officials, including licensing officials. This choice to shrink from Texas’ challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions....

This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to “veto” or “nullif[y]” any federal law with which they disagreed....

What are federal courts to do if, for example, a State effectively prohibits worship by a disfavored religious minority through crushing “private” litigation burdens amplified by skewed court procedures, but does a better job than Texas of disclaiming all enforcement by state officials? Perhaps nothing at all, says this Court....

Houston Public Media reports on the decision.

Then in the other challenge to the Texas law, United States v. Texas, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2021), the Court, over the dissent of Justice Sotomayor, dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

California Group Publishes Proposals To Protect Abortion In A Post- Roe v. Wade World

In California, the Future of Abortion Council, an organization comprised of 40 advocacy organizations and abortion providers,  yesterday released a Report (full text) setting out 45 recommendations for the legislature to consider if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. According to ABC News:

With more than two dozen states poised to ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court gives them the OK next year, California clinics and their allies in the state Legislature on Wednesday revealed a plan to make the state a “sanctuary" for those seeking reproductive care, including possibly paying for travel, lodging and procedures for people from other states....

The recommendations are not just a liberal fantasy. Some of the state's most important policymakers helped write them, including Toni Atkins, the San Diego Democrat who leads the state Senate and attended multiple meetings.

Oral Arguments In Supreme Court On Mississippi Abortion Case

Here are links to the transcript and audio of oral arguments this morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to the Mississippi law which bars most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. CNN reports on the arguments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Wednesday In Term's Major Abortion Case

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to the Mississippi law which bars most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the statute. (See prior posting.) In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court limited the question on review to: "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." Mississippi's brief in the case starkly lay out the major issue, contending: "Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition."

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the vast number of amicus briefs and other filings in the case. The oral arguments will be streamed live at this link when the Court convenes at 10:00 AM Eastern Time on Wednesday.

141 Amicus Briefs Filed In Mississippi Abortion Law Case

Oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the much-watched Mississippi abortion case, will be heard by the Supreme Court on December 1. A near-record number of amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs have been filed in the case-- 141 in total on the merits. Links to nearly all of the briefs are available on the SCOTUS blog case page for the case. A 2020 National Law Journal article says that the record for number of amicus briefs in one Supreme Court case is 156.

Nurse's Religious Objections Should Have Been Accommodated Under Illinois Right of Conscience Act

 In Rojas v. Martell,(IL Cir. Ct., Oct. 25, 2021), an Illinois state trial court held that under Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, a county Health Department Clinic should have accommodated the objections of a nurse who on religious grounds would not participate in abortion referrals or provide contraceptives to patients. However, the court found that plaintiff was entitled only to the statutory minimum damages of $2500 because she should have mitigated damages by pursuing a position that was available at a nursing home. The court summarized its holding:

[W]hen one member of a team of employees makes an objection of conscience to performing a minority of her job duties, the employer should be required to accommodate the employee in her present position if doing so does not unreasonably compromise the employer's operations.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Supreme Court GVR's Challenge To New York's Abortion Coverage Mandate

In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Emami, (Docket No. 20-1501, GVR, 11/1/2021) (Order List) the U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to New York's Appellate Division for further consideration in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted full review of the New York decision. In the case, the New York court rejected a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting.) Becket Law issued a press release discussing the Court's action.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today In Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in two cases challenging the Texas "heartbeat" abortion ban. The question the Supreme Court agreed to consider is not the ultimate constitutionality of the ban, but whether Texas has effectively insulated the law from pre-enforcement challenge.  In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the question presented by the petition for certiorari is:

whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.

In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari was limited to the question:

May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.

The SCOTUS blog case pages for the cases (1, 2 ) have links to all the filings by the parties, as well as to the numerous amicus briefs that have been filed. SCOTUS blog has an extensive preview of the arguments. The arguments will be streamed live by C-SPAN.  At 10:00 AM (EST) arguments in Whole Woman's Health can be heard here. At 11:00 AM (EST) arguments in U.S. v. Texas can be  heard here. I will update this post to furnish links to the transcripts and recordings of the arguments when those become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of arguments in Whole Woman's Health. And here are the links in United States v. Texas.

Canadian Court Upholds Job Program Funding Limited To Groups Supporting Abortion Rights

In Right to Life Association of Toronto v. Canada , (Fed.Ct., Oct. 22, 2021), Canada's Federal Court in a 63-pagae opinion upheld a requirement in the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program that required organizations applying for funding to attest that they respected individual human rights, Charter rights and reproductive rights. A right-to-life organization and individuals associated with it claimed that the attestation went beyond the Ministry's authority, was added at the behest of an abortion rights lobby, and infringes their freedom of religion and of speech. The court said in part:

[191] As found, the Attestation was a reasonable policy decision and within the Minister’s authority in accordance with the DESDA [Department of Employment and Social Development Act]. The decision to add the Attestation was not made with a closed mind, for improper purposes, or based on irrelevant considerations.

[192] The effect of the Attestation restricted or limited the Applicants’ rights to freedom of religion and protection against compelled speech, but only minimally and only in the context of the application for 2018 CSJ [Canadian Summer Jobs] funding. The limitation on the Applicants’ Charter rights reflects a proportionate balancing with the objectives of the DESDA and the CSJ program.

National Post reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Grants Extra Rapid Review In Texas Abortion Cases, But Postpones Granting Interim Stay

The U.S. Supreme Court today took action to decide quickly whether Texas has effectively shielded its new "heartbeat" abortion law (S.B. 8) from review.  In two cases in which emergency relief was sought, the Court granted review ahead of any decision by the Court of Appeals. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, it granted a petition for certiorari before judgment. (Order List). In the case, the Supreme Court previously refused to prevent Texas' S.B.8 from continuing in effect while its constitutionality is being litigated. (See prior posting.) Also today, the Court acted in United States v. Texas, the Justice Department's challenge to the Texas law.  The Court granted certiorari before judgment and "deferred pending oral argument" the government's motion to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay of the district court's injunction barring enforcement of S.B.8. The grant of review was limited to:

May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.

This parallels the question presented by the Petition for Certiorari in Whole Woman's Health:

[W]hether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.

In both cases, the Court ordered that petitioners' briefs (as well as any amicus briefs) be filed electronically by Oct. 27, and reply briefs be filed by Oct. 29. Oral argument in both cases is set for Nov. 1.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent to the Court's refusal in United States v. Texas to grant an immediate stay, pending the appellate process, of enforcement of the law, saying in part:

[T]he Court’s failure to issue an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order pending its decision on this application will have profound and immediate consequences. By delaying any remedy, the Court enables continued and irreparable harm to women seeking abortion care and providers of such care in Texas—exactly as S. B. 8’s architects intended... 

 CNN reports on the Court's action, as does the New York Times.