Franklin Pierce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 25,146
- Likes
- 28,336
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill asked the Supreme Court Friday to rule on a 2016 law which bans abortions that are chosen solely due to a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. In his petition, Hill argues that the state’s ban merits consideration in light of eugenics concerns raised due to the high Down syndrome abortion rates following advances in prenatal genetic testing.
Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union sued over the law shortly after its passage and succeeded in getting a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the measure, finding it to be “unconstitutional.”
Hill’s petition to the Supreme Court makes the case that Indiana’s provision is a new type of abortion restriction and one that does not unduly burden a woman’s constitutional right to choose abortion.
“The non-discrimination provision is a qualitatively new type of abortion regulation, one that neither implicates the concerns underlying Roe and Casey nor burdens the right those cases ultimately protect,” he writes. “It regulates women who have already made the decision ‘to bear or beget a child,’ but simply do not want to bear a particular child.”
“Only this Court can correct the lower court’s misperception that Roe and Casey bar this law,” he emphasizes. “Accordingly, the Court should grant certiorari and uphold Indiana’s authority to put an end to eugenic abortions.”
MORE HERE:
SCOTUS May Consider Down Syndrome Abortion Ban in What Would Be a Pivotal Case for Disability Rights
Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union sued over the law shortly after its passage and succeeded in getting a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the measure, finding it to be “unconstitutional.”
Hill’s petition to the Supreme Court makes the case that Indiana’s provision is a new type of abortion restriction and one that does not unduly burden a woman’s constitutional right to choose abortion.
“The non-discrimination provision is a qualitatively new type of abortion regulation, one that neither implicates the concerns underlying Roe and Casey nor burdens the right those cases ultimately protect,” he writes. “It regulates women who have already made the decision ‘to bear or beget a child,’ but simply do not want to bear a particular child.”
“Only this Court can correct the lower court’s misperception that Roe and Casey bar this law,” he emphasizes. “Accordingly, the Court should grant certiorari and uphold Indiana’s authority to put an end to eugenic abortions.”
MORE HERE:
SCOTUS May Consider Down Syndrome Abortion Ban in What Would Be a Pivotal Case for Disability Rights