Source: cnbc.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court said Friday it will not hear arguments over a 2016 Alabama abortion law that outlaws the most common procedure used during a pregnancy\u2019s second trimester. The decision means the law, which had been blocked by lower courts, will not go into effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case concerned a law enacted by Alabama lawmakers barring the dilation and evacuation procedure. The procedure, which is typical after about 15 weeks, involves dilating the cervix and removing fetal tissue, often in multiple pieces, which is prohibited by the law\u2019s language banning \u201cdismemberment.\u201d The law provides an exception in cases involving serious health risk to the mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The procedure accounts for 99% of abortions performed after 15 weeks in Alabama, according to attorneys for two Alabama women\u2019s centers and two doctors who challenged the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The law never went into effect. Two federal courts blocked the law after finding that there was no alternative method that was safe, effective and available. The Supreme Court has held that state bans on abortion before the fetus is viable are unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,\u201d Chief Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, wrote in the court\u2019s decision keeping the law from going into effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an opinion concurring with the court\u2019s decision not to grant the case, Justice Clarence Thomas, the court\u2019s most conservative member, repeated his position that the court has erred in its past rulings on abortion. But he acknowledged that under the court\u2019s precedents, the law is not valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,\u201d Thomas wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut under the \u2018undue burden\u2019 standard adopted by this Court, a restriction on abortion \u2014 even one limited to prohibiting gruesome methods \u2014 is unconstitutional\u201d if the purpose or effect of the law is to impose an obstacle on abortions before viability, he wrote, citing the court\u2019s 2016 decision, Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court\u2019s announcement comes as conservative states across the country, including Alabama, are racing to pass restrictive abortion laws in the hopes of testing the top court\u2019s willingness to uphold its abortion precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those efforts followed the confirmation of President Donald Trump\u2019s second nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, solidifying the court\u2019s conservative majority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed a different anti-abortion law in May, banning doctors from performing abortions during any stage of pregnancy. It\u2019s the nation\u2019s most restrictive abortion law.<\/p>\n