Supreme Court Refuses Arizona Abortion Ban Case, Ruling Favors Unrestricted Abortions

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the case regarding the Arizona abortion ban, blocking the state from enforcing a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, effectively striking down the majority supported state law.

The Supreme Court ruling is the latest blow for states that have tried to pass laws restricting abortion, within their Tenth Amendment boundaries and with the will of their people. A recent survey nationwide found the highest level of support for a waiting period in two years, with support for late-term abortion bans in the majority at all-time highs.

The high court declined to hear an appeal from Arizona, which essentially leaves in place a prior ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law was unconstitutional.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012, and 9 other states have enacted late-term abortion bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier.

However, several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or struck down by other courts, with the latest Supreme Court decision sure to further embolden opponents of the laws.

In its ruling, the federal appeals court said the law violates a woman’s constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. “Viability” of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks, despite a consensus among medical experts that babies at the 20-week mark have survived and feel pain.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said late-term abortion bans run contrary to Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, and supporters of the legislation said the law was meant to protect the mother’s health and prevent fetuses from feeling pain.

U.S. District Judge James Teilborg originally ruled it was constitutional, but the 9th Circuit stepped in and blocked the late-term abortion ban.

Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn’t technically a law, but a mere medical regulation, as it still allowed for doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies.

Worth noting, the plaintiff in Roe. V. Wade now spends her time as an advocate for pro-life, telling stories about how she was used by the far left to further an agenda that had nothing to do with women’s rights, but rather an industry that sees billions of dollars in profits.