Kentucky Abortion Law: Attorney General To Defend In Court

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky's Republican attorney general, Daniel Cameron, can intervene to defend a restrictive state abortion law that had been abandoned by another government official. The law, passed in 2018, would ban the use of a surgical abortion procedure commonly used in the second trimester of pregnancy. The ruling gives defenders of the Kentucky law a chance to try to revive it.

Kentucky's abortion law restricts the dilation and evacuation method

Kentucky's abortion law, House Bill 454, restricts the dilation and evacuation (D&E) method, a common surgical procedure used in the second trimester of pregnancy. The law places strict limits on the use of D&E, which was the most common form of abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion rights advocates argue that the law would effectively ban the procedure, while proponents of the law deny this claim.

The D&E method was used in 537 out of 3,312 abortions performed in Kentucky in 2016, according to state statistics. During legislative debates, supporters of the bill referred to the procedure as "gruesome." The law was passed by Kentucky's legislature and signed by then-Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, in 2018. However, it was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court, and the state appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The D&E method involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetus and other pregnancy tissue from the uterus. It is a safe and effective procedure, but opponents argue that it is inhumane and causes fetal pain. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other abortion rights organizations have challenged the law, arguing that it would force women to seek the procedure out of state and restrict their constitutional right to an abortion.

The Supreme Court's ruling in March 2022, allowing Kentucky's Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron to intervene in the case, gives defenders of the law another chance to revive it. This ruling focuses on the technical aspects of the legal battle and the right of the attorney general to act when another state official declines, rather than the merits of the law itself. However, it is a setback for abortion rights supporters as it could lead to the resurrection of a restrictive abortion law.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favour of Daniel Cameron

The abortion law in question is a 2018 statute that places strict limits on the use of an abortion method called dilation and evacuation, the most common form of the procedure during the second trimester of pregnancy. Abortion rights advocates argue that the law would effectively ban the procedure, while its proponents deny this claim. The law was initially signed by then-Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, but was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court.

The Supreme Court's ruling dealt with the technical aspects of the legal battle over Kentucky's law, rather than the merits of the statute itself. However, the decision is a setback for abortion rights supporters as it could lead to the resurrection of a law that is one of several pushed by anti-abortion advocates to further limit when women can terminate pregnancies. The ruling also highlights the conflicts that can arise when a governor and a state's top legal officer differ in political views or party, resulting in disagreements on defending state laws in court.

The sole dissent in the Supreme Court's ruling came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the majority was "bending over backward to accommodate the attorney general's reentry into the case." Sotomayor also expressed concern that the ruling could set a precedent for government officials to evade the consequences of litigation decisions made by their predecessors of different political parties, undermining finality and settled expectations.

Cameron will continue to defend the law

> We will proudly continue to carry the mantle for this important pro-life law by going back to the Sixth Circuit and litigating the case.

Cameron's victory does not guarantee that the full appeals court will grant his request for a review or allow the law to take effect. However, it does give defenders of the Kentucky law another chance to try to revive it.

The Supreme Court's ruling dealt with the technical aspects of the legal battle over Kentucky's law, rather than the merits of the statute itself. The law in question, House Bill 454, would ban the use of a surgical abortion procedure commonly used in the second trimester of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court's decision to allow Cameron to defend the law highlights the conflicts that can arise when a governor and a state's top legal officer differ in political views or party, leading to disagreements on whether to defend certain state laws in court.

The Supreme Court will decide on Mississippi's abortion case

The Supreme Court's decision to let Kentucky's Republican Attorney General, Daniel Cameron, defend the state's restrictive abortion law, which had been abandoned by another government official, brings attention to the pending case of Mississippi's abortion law. The Supreme Court is yet to rule on the Mississippi abortion law, which presents a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 state law banning most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Mississippi case in December 2021, and a ruling is expected by the end of June. The case has far-reaching implications as it challenges the nearly 50-year-old precedent protecting a pregnant person's right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court's decision in the Mississippi case will have a significant impact on abortion rights across the nation.

The Kentucky case, which the Supreme Court ruled on in March 2022, dealt with the technical aspects of the legal battle over the state's law rather than the merits of the statute itself. However, the decision is a setback for abortion rights supporters as it could lead to the resurrection of a restrictive law. The Kentucky law, House Bill 454, would ban a surgical abortion procedure commonly used in the second trimester of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Mississippi case is highly anticipated and will have implications for abortion rights across the country. With a conservative majority on the Court, there is a possibility that the ruling could erode or end long-standing abortion protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. The Court's decision will have a significant impact on the availability of abortion services and the rights of pregnant individuals across the nation.

The Kentucky law was passed in 2018

Immediately after the law was signed, a Louisville women's surgical center challenged it in court. A federal judge found the law unconstitutional, concluding that it restricted a woman's constitutional right to an abortion before the fetus is considered viable. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, based in Ohio, agreed.

The Kentucky law was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The state appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. However, before the court issued its decision, Kentucky elected a new governor, Andy Beshear, a Democrat, and a new attorney general, Daniel Cameron, a Republican.

The Sixth Circuit then upheld the lower court's ruling against the law. Despite this, Cameron tried to intervene in the case, seeking another appeals hearing. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in his favor, allowing him to step in and defend the law.

Frequently asked questions