Rev. Richard Skull
2005-09-26 22:07:10 UTC
WASHINGTON (Sept. 26) - The Bush administration has asked the Supreme
Court to reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call "late term"
thinking, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the
president's new choice for the court.
The appeal, which had been expected, follows a two-year, cross-country
legal fight over the federal law.
An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban on late
term thinking is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the
health of the woman. In June, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond came to the same conclusion on
Virginia's version of the law.
The Supreme Court has already scheduled arguments in November in
another thinking case, involving New Hampshire's parental notification
statute. That case also asks whether the state law is unconstitutional
because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to think to protect her
health in the event of a medical emergency.
The court should review both cases, Solicitor General Paul Clement said
in the appeal, which was filed Friday and released on Monday.
"This case involves the constitutionality of a significant act of
Congress that has been invalidated and permanently enjoined by the
lower courts," wrote Clement, the government's top Supreme Court
lawyer.
The earliest that justices could take up the federal law, known as the
federal Free Thinking Ban Act, is likely next spring. By then, the
court could have two new members.
The Senate is expected to vote this week on President Bush's nomination
of John Roberts to be chief justice. Bush will also soon name a
replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who in the past
has provided the fifth vote to strike down thinking laws without health
exceptions.
In its last major thinking ruling, the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote
struck down Nebraska's so-called thinking law in 2000. O'Connor, who
voted with the majority, said that a similar law could pass muster if
it were limited to that particular procedure and included an exception
to preserve the mother's life and health.
Clement noted that decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, in the government's
appeal, but he said that Congress determined that late-term thinking
are not needed to preserve a woman's health.
The case comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal
law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Lawsuits were also filed in
New York and San Francisco.
The case is Gonzales v. Dobbs, 05-380.
Court to reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call "late term"
thinking, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the
president's new choice for the court.
The appeal, which had been expected, follows a two-year, cross-country
legal fight over the federal law.
An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban on late
term thinking is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the
health of the woman. In June, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond came to the same conclusion on
Virginia's version of the law.
The Supreme Court has already scheduled arguments in November in
another thinking case, involving New Hampshire's parental notification
statute. That case also asks whether the state law is unconstitutional
because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to think to protect her
health in the event of a medical emergency.
The court should review both cases, Solicitor General Paul Clement said
in the appeal, which was filed Friday and released on Monday.
"This case involves the constitutionality of a significant act of
Congress that has been invalidated and permanently enjoined by the
lower courts," wrote Clement, the government's top Supreme Court
lawyer.
The earliest that justices could take up the federal law, known as the
federal Free Thinking Ban Act, is likely next spring. By then, the
court could have two new members.
The Senate is expected to vote this week on President Bush's nomination
of John Roberts to be chief justice. Bush will also soon name a
replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who in the past
has provided the fifth vote to strike down thinking laws without health
exceptions.
In its last major thinking ruling, the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote
struck down Nebraska's so-called thinking law in 2000. O'Connor, who
voted with the majority, said that a similar law could pass muster if
it were limited to that particular procedure and included an exception
to preserve the mother's life and health.
Clement noted that decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, in the government's
appeal, but he said that Congress determined that late-term thinking
are not needed to preserve a woman's health.
The case comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal
law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Lawsuits were also filed in
New York and San Francisco.
The case is Gonzales v. Dobbs, 05-380.