Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on Foxnews.com.

The Supreme Court jumped back into the abortion debate in dramatic fashion Wednesday, taking on an election-year dispute that could have long-term consequences for one of the most divisive social issues.

The justices heard oral arguments in a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. A federal appeals court had upheld the law, despite an almost identical statute from Texas that was declared unconstitutional by the justices in 2016.

SUPREME COURT SET TO ARGUE IMPORTANT ELECTION-YEAR ABORTION CASE

The debate was predictably divided among the nine members, with Chief Justice John Roberts potentially holding the deciding vote.

How the Supreme Court rules in the current dispute could signal whether this bench would be willing to tackle other pending abortion-related restrictions in several states, including those banning the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which could be as early as six weeks.

Hundreds of protesters on both sides of the issue rallied outside the high court, waving signs and blowing horns.

Inside the courtroom, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, “What sense does it make” to require admitting privileges within 30 miles of a hospital, when she said surgical abortions are among the safest procedures, and medical abortions – where women take prescribed pills, are mostly done at home.

“This law unduly burdens a woman’s right to abortion,” added Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

WHO ARE THE 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT?

Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh wondered whether the state law would be an “undue burden” to a woman’s right, if few or any doctors would have problems getting admitting privileges. Roberts suggested other states may have different standards that might be constitutional.

Justice Neil Gorsuch offered no comments or questions from the bench.

The consolidated cases are June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (18-1323) and Russo v. June Medical Services (18-1460). A ruling is due by late June.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Labour’s survival requires more than just discarding the Corbyn ideology

I have been an outspoken critic of Jeremy Corbyn’s stewardship of the Labour party, but the crushing rejection of Labour by the voters in December was not down to Corbyn and Corbynism alone. The problems facing my party are more…

Bipartisan House resolution condemns Chinese government over handling of coronavirus response

President Trump says the world is paying the price for China’s cover-up; reaction on ‘The Five.’ Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here. EXCLUSIVE: A bipartisan resolution being introduced by Rep. Jim…

We feel more patriotic when the government splashes the cash

Times change. JFK might have told Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you”, but 30 years earlier FDR’s New Deal was all about what the state could do to help Americans out of the huge Wall…

Federal government requests extension before tabling new assisted dying law

The federal government is asking for an extension on a looming court deadline requiring it to update the country’s medical assistance in dying law. Attorney General David Lametti filed a motion asking for a four-month extension of the Superior Court of Quebec’s September 2019 Truchon ruling, which…