Ailan Evans
A federal court upheld an earlier district court ruling on Wednesday that blocked Missouri’s recently passed abortion law.
The law, titled the Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act, prohibits abortions for women eight or more weeks pregnant and for women seeking an abortion solely due to a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. U.S. 8th Circuit Judge Jane Kelly ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
The ruling upheld an earlier injunction issued by a district court in a suit brought by Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood against Missouri. The appeals court argued that prohibiting pre-viability abortions on the basis of “gestational age” was in practice a ban, as “there is nothing an individual in Missouri could lawfully do to obtain an abortion at or after the applicable gestational age cut-off.”
“Gestational Age Provisions are bans, and we agree with the district court,” the court wrote. “Bans on pre-viability abortions are categorically unconstitutional.”
The court also ruled that prohibiting abortions for women seeking the procedure solely due to a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome was unconstitutional.
“We’re disappointed the circuit court refused to let Missouri’s law stand,” said Sue Liebel, policy director for pro-life group The Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement Wednesday. “Missouri lawmakers acted on the will of the people when they enacted some of the nation’s strongest protections for the unborn and their mothers in 2019.”
Yamelsie Rodríguez, president of Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, applauded the decision. “Planned Parenthood will not back down — today is proof enough,” she said in a statement.
The ruling comes amid a surge of new pro-life legislation, with over 500 pro-life bills introduced this year by lawmakers across the country.
Moreover, the Supreme Court decided last month to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case concerning a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. Abortion advocacy groups, such as The Center for Reproductive Rights, have raised concerns that the case has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. It’s Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.
Support journalism by clicking here to our gofundme or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here
What this article failed to mention, is that Roe V. Wade was a tentative SCOTUS decision. The basis of the opinions are ALL based on the lack of a definition within State and Federal regulations for “when is a child recognized by the State as a living person. The ruling goes to great length to articulate this lack of a legal basis to determine how or when a child becomes “a person”. This MUST be defined by legislative process, and accepted – signed into law – by the Governor, as the Executive Branch, and at that the Judicial Branch AT ALL LEVELS, must recognize the legally binding definition and evaluate in accordance with the State’s definition of recognizing the Child’s right to life.
IF the law fails to establish a means or define an reasonably identifiable gestational stage, age, time that the State recognizes in law the person living and growing within a mother’s womb, it has not established a lawful basis to be evaluated for constitutionality/ and the SCOTUS R v. W definition of supposed “viability” as being undeniably perceived as the most “reasonable” definition as the “beginning of life” for a human child.
Everyone with a minimal understanding of when a human or animal is “alive” knows that a child is alive far before being “viable” without medical care or support separate from their mother.
A detectable heartbeat – very similar to legal definitions pertaining to the end of life, define as well reasonable means to determine that a mother is carrying a living child. And, in multiple States, is recognized as such. When legally identified as a living child, with obviously separate DNA from the Mother, the Child has a constitutionally protected right to life. Any action or procedure intended to kill the child, defined in law as “abortion”, would require reasonable justification to be ruled a justifiable homicide. A justifiable killing of a legally recognized “person”.
Justifying an abortion should bear no difference from regulations defining what constitutes reasonable use of deadly force, or reasonable justification for one person (a Mother) to kill another person (her child). R v. W is a ruling ASKING for legislative resolution of an centuries old, even multi-millennium old question.
A question of when does one’s life begin, in which the answer always includes, it all depends. Many centuries ago, a child was thought to be a living person upon it’s first breath, a cry, in some societies upon the first birthday. Biblically and medically, biologically it is well defined as at conception. For some girls, their future children already are named, a decade before they may be conceived. Within the modern medical capabilities, I believe that most medically competent professionals, can prove a child is alive within a week of conception, before some OTC pregnancy tests would indicate to a girl/woman (or her sexual partner), that she is a mother. BUT, for the legally definition, what is established as a reasonable time or means to recognize when a child is “alive”.
Illinois has the most draconian, ignorant, lack of a definition known to be enacted anywhere. There is NOT a time or means recognized by the state in recently passed and enacted legislation at which killing a child then would require justification for killing a child. Technically, within the legislation, a Mother can have a normal natural delivery, and decide without any reason, to have her child left to die of exposure. Or even at three years old, within the confines of the legislation, kill her child as a “late term abortion”. Hundreds of amendments intended to insert a simply defined “end point” at which a child is protected as a constitutionally defined person, were all summarily rejected and were not allowed to be presented, discussed or considered.
The record of the Illinois bill is a disgusting example of immoral Democrat legislators having absolute power and control. Without a single Democrat legislator voting as a representative of the citizens of their district, or placing their vote based on morality, ethics, or conscience. Not one voted to recognize that children, babies in a hospital or home nursery are (very small) living human beings. Not one Democrat legislator voted that Children should be legally defined and lawfully protected as People, at any point in their life.
Sure, other laws kick in requiring them to be educated.
To not be allowed to work until the state allows them to.
Recognizing their personhood. But, not addressing when children are too old to be killed without a justification.