A handful of conservative Republican lawmakers have hampered what they thought was a clear path to setting new restrictions on abortion if the Supreme Court overturned the breakthrough. Encountered Roe v. Wade Decision: Protection of privacy rights enshrined in their own state constitution.
In states where the court ruled that the explicit right to privacy of the Constitution extends to women’s right to abortion, the procedure remains legal even if the 1973 Supreme Court ruling is overturned. And the defenders of abortion rights said. ..
In Montana, problems are occurring in courts where state judges have temporarily blocked three new abortion bans. The state’s Attorney General has appealed to the state Supreme Court and asked the judge to overturn the 23-year-old ruling, which has extended to the right to abolish the constitutional right to state privacy.
If that effort fails, Roe v. Wade Conservative Montana could be a sanctuary for women seeking abortion from neighboring Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota, according to analysts at research institutes that support the right to abortion.
Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, said, “If half of the states have banned abortions, if possible, talk about people traveling long distances to protect their rights. I have. ” “And if access remains protected in Montana, Montana will be the place where people seek their care.”
Within the next few months, the US Supreme Court will rule a proceeding against Mississippi law prohibiting most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The court recently upheld Texas law, which banned most abortions six weeks later and handed over enforcement to citizens who could file proceedings against those who support the abortion.
The Mississippi decision, as legal experts speculate, egg A decision to guarantee the right to abortion nationwide and allow each state to set its own legislation. In that scenario, the Guttmacher Institute predicts that abortion will definitely be banned or likely to be banned in 26 states.
Meanwhile, lawmakers and citizens in other states, such as New Jersey, New York, and Colorado, are working to protect or extend the right to abortion.
original Roe v. Wade The judgment was primarily based on the protection of right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the word “right to privacy” is not really written in the US Constitution. This is a point frequently raised by opponents of abortion.
However, these words are written in the Constitution of 11 states, with an unexpected twist to organize the posts.egg Legal landscape.
It is not a problem for left-wing nations like California, which passed a 2002 law to protect the right to abortion, citing the constitutional right to privacy for personal reproductive decisions.In that state, if the Supreme Court weakens or destroys it, leaders are preparing for a potential influx of women from other states seeking medical care. egg decision.
But in conservative Alaska, abortion advocates say that the constitutional right to privacy protects women’s choices there, regardless of what the US Supreme Court does. Voters will decide in November whether to convene a Constitutional Assembly, which opposition to abortion sees as an opportunity to amend the Constitution to ban abortion.
The Florida State Constitution states that “every natural person has the right to be freed and left alone from the government’s invasion of his or her private life.” In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court found that this provision protects the right to abortion.
While the Louisiana Constitution protects citizens from invasion of privacy, voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2020, saying, “This Constitution secures or protects the right to abortion and demands funding for abortion. There is nothing to do. “
Right to privacy provisions can also be found in the Constitutions of Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Washington.
The Montana Constitution states that “the right to personal privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and must not be violated without the strong interest of the country.”
In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the right to make their own medical decisions. “We believed that this right protected a woman’s reproductive autonomy and her ability to seek and obtain legal medical procedures. The court’s unanimous opinion was stated in a recent interview. rice field.
Caitlin Borgman, Executive Director of the Montana ACLU, briefly explained the importance of the decision. “It’s essentially Montana’s Roe v. Wade“She said.
The Republican-controlled Montana State Capitol, supported by the state’s Governor for the first time in 16 years, passed a bill against abortion last year. They included a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, a requirement to give women the opportunity to see ultrasound before the abortion, and restrictions on the use of abortion drugs. .. Then give the medicine directly to the woman. This is an additional obstacle in rural states like Montana.
Montana’s planned parent-child relationship violates the constitutional right to state privacy, along with equal protection, safety, health and well-being, personal dignity, freedom of speech, and the right to proper proceedings. I have filed a lawsuit that I am. In October, Judge Michael Moses of Billings granted a provisional injunction to prevent the enforcement of the law.
According to Flathead Beacon, the ruling called for Derek Skees, one of the Republicans, to abolish “the rags of Montana’s socialist constitution.” “Our constitution has no basis for using the right to privacy to kill babies,” he told the newspaper.
Attorney General Austin Knudsen urged the Montana Supreme Court to overturn Moses’ injunction and invalidate the 1999 ruling that linked privacy rights to medical decisions. Knudsen said seven members of the court had the opportunity to revise what he called “unlimited judicial activity.”
David Dewist, Solicitor of Montana’s Knusen, called the 1999 decision “sloppy” and “confused.”
“This is not some kind of political stunt,” Dewhirst said. “The case was decided incorrectly.”
Marsafler, President and CEO of Montana’s planned parent-child relationship, said Knusen’s attempt to overturn the 1999 privacy ruling in the state court reflected a larger national debate over the judicial precedents in the abortion law. She said she believed. “The law is a law and is not based on it.’This judge said this, and the other judges said it,'” said Fuller. “It’s where the integrity of our legal system comes from. It’s not coming. “
If the State High Court decides against Knusen, supporters of abortion expect voters to change the state’s constitution, either through amendments or by initiating a constitutional meeting. increase.
However, Anthony Johnstone, who teaches the Constitution at the University of Montana, said it was deliberately difficult to change the state’s constitution. Just asking voters to consider amendments and treaties requires 100 votes in the state’s 150-seat parliament.
“The Montanas always have the last word to amend our constitution,” Johnstone said.
|
|
..
