Justice Alito takes aim at abortion rights, gay marriage and Covid rules

Supreme court justice warns freedom of speech becoming ‘second-tier constitutional right’ in partisan address to Federalist Society

Tom McCarthy
Fri 13 Nov 2020

The inability of people to say, without fear of being branded as bigots, that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman is threatening to make freedom of speech “a second-tier constitutional right”, supreme court justice Samuel Alito said at a virtual conference on Thursday.

In a bleak address, Alito took aim at abortion rights, same-sex marriage, gun control and other conservative bugbears.

Continued: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/13/justice-samuel-alito-supreme-court-liberty

Explaining the third-party question in the Supreme Court abortion case

Explaining the third-party question in the Supreme Court abortion case
Third-party standing could impact abortion cases down the road.

By Alexandra Svokos
21 June 2020

The Supreme Court will be announcing a decision in a major abortion case soon, and while it's centered on one state law, another question has come up in the case that could have massive consequences for the future of abortion laws in America.

June Medical Services v. Russo is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.

Continued: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-party-question-supreme-court-abortion-case/story?id=71373615

USA – The Supreme Court’s Fictional Middle Ground on Abortion

The Supreme Court’s Fictional Middle Ground on Abortion
There is no such thing.

By Linda Greenhouse, Contributing Opinion Writer
March 12, 2020

Following last week’s argument in a Louisiana abortion case, the consensus among attentive Supreme Court-watchers is that the outcome depends on Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed not to share Justice Samuel Alito’s visceral dislike of abortion clinics and his deep suspicion of doctors who work in them. I agree.

Further, many of these close observers came away believing that even if the justices rule for Louisiana, they will take neither of the two drastic steps being pressed on the court by the state and its White House ally: to reject four decades of settled law under which doctors can challenge abortion restrictions on their patients’ behalf, or to overturn the 2016 decision that struck down the same admitting-privileges requirement in Texas that Louisiana is now defending.

Continued: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/opinion/abortion-supreme-court.html

No matter what the Supreme Court decides, abortion opponents have already won

No matter what the Supreme Court decides, abortion opponents have already won
As the Supreme Court considers a Louisiana law, this is how anti-abortion groups see the direction of the country.

By Anna North
Mar 5, 2020

WASHINGTON, DC — Standing in front of the US Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, Dennis McKirahan was in a hopeful mood. “It’s a great day,” he said, glancing at the blue sky. “The sun is shining in me and outside.”

He and around a dozen other activists were with the group Shofar Call International, a Christian group that blows a horn typically used in Jewish ceremonies called the shofar as part of anti-abortion demonstrations and religious events. “In Hebrew the Shofar is also referred to as the Bat Kol or the Voice of Heaven,” the group’s website states. “When the enemy hears the Voice of Heaven being proclaimed in the earth, he trembles in fear.”

Continued: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/5/21164953/abortion-supreme-court-louisiana-case-admitting-privileges

USA – Justices Give Few Hints on How They Will Rule on Louisiana Abortion Law

Justices Give Few Hints on How They Will Rule on Louisiana Abortion Law
The Supreme Court is considering whether Louisiana can require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, in a case likely to yield an unusually telling decision.

By Adam Liptak
March 4, 2020

WASHINGTON — The argument at times sounded like a sterile analysis undertaken by management consultants: What were the benefits of requiring doctors who perform abortions to have relationships with nearby hospitals? Would requiring such relationships force abortion clinics to close?

The questions — about medical regulations, hospital bylaws, travel times and safety records — could seem pedestrian in their granular details. But the cost-benefit analysis undertaken on Wednesday at the Supreme Court illustrated its current approach to the right to abortion, one that seems to turn on contested factual disputes rather than broad constitutional principles.

Continued: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/supreme-court-abortion.html

Roe v Wade is ‘precedent,’ Kavanaugh says, but there’s more to the future of abortion

Roe v Wade is 'precedent,' Kavanaugh says, but there's more to the future of abortion

By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer
Thu September 6, 2018

Washington (CNN)Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday described Roe v. Wade's right to abortion as settled -- "important precedent" -- yet he has also narrowly interpreted when a woman can exercise that right.

His past views, reinforced by testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggest Kavanaugh would permit government to impose stricter regulation of abortion, for example, with additional requirements that could delay the procedure or in stiffer rules for physicians who would perform it.

Continued: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-planned-parenthood-casey/index.html