Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday nodded at the argument that abortion laws could be an “assault on bodily autonomy” before saying such problems exist in ” other contexts such as vaccines “.
Justice, which was appointed by former President Donald Trump and is conservative in its decision-making, made the remark during oral argument in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Case. The case, which centers on Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks pregnant, is the biggest challenge for Roe vs. Wade for decades – a 1973 ruling that declared abortion a constitutional right, although it is nowhere mentioned in the text of the US Constitution.
Barrett asked Center for Reproductive Rights senior director Julie Rikelman about the implication Safe Haven laws might have on abortion law, in particular whether the current law imposes an equal burden on parenthood. and pregnancy. Safe Haven laws are designed to prevent the abandonment of newborns and allow parents to leave newborns in any Safe Haven facility recognized by state law. The child then becomes a ward of the State. The exact parameters vary from state to state, although all 50 states have Safe Haven laws.
Barrett interviewed [emphasis added]:
Ms. Rickelman, I have a question on Safe Haven laws. The petitioner points out that in all 50 states you can terminate parental rights by giving up a child after an abortion. And I think the shortest period could have been 48 hours if I remember the data correctly. So it seems to me, seen from this angle, both Roe deer and Casey Emphasize the burdens of parenthood and as you and many of your friends focus on the ways that forced parenting, forced motherhood would hinder women’s access to work and equal opportunities, it is also focused on the consequences of parenthood and the maternity obligations that arise from pregnancy.
Why are Safe Haven laws not addressing this problem? It seems to me that he concentrates the burden much more narrowly. There is undoubtedly an attack on bodily autonomy, which we have in other contexts such as vaccines. However, it doesn’t seem to me that pregnancy and then parenthood are part of the same burden. And so it seems to me that the choice to focus would be between, say, having an abortion at 23 weeks or the state of requiring the woman to spend 15, 16 more weeks and then terminate parental rights at the end. Why don’t you go to the shelter laws and why don’t they matter?
Rikelman did not respond to the comparison of the vaccine’s mandate, but argued that Safe Haven laws are irrelevant because “pregnancy itself is unique” compared to parenthood in that it ” imposes unique physical demands and risks on women… ”
Barrett’s occasional mention of vaccines in relation to bodily autonomy could be a spike in his perspective of vaccine warrants – a prospect that could have huge implications as vaccine warrants continue to be overturned by lower courts. Across the country.
There has been speculation that the Biden administration would end up appealing to the Supreme Court after several justices suspended one or another of its federal coronavirus vaccination mandates. A judge on Tuesday issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against Biden’s mandate for healthcare workers shortly after another judge suspended the warrant in ten states.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also suspended implementation of its federal mandate on vaccines affecting approximately 80 million workers in the United States after the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled granted a motion to temporarily suspend her emergency COVID-19 vaccination and testing. Standard (ETS).
The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 to the Supreme Court of the United States.