Tag Archives: supreme court

Supreme Court refuses to hear abortion law appeal

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol Zimmermann
WASHINGTON (CNS) –The day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major abortion ruling striking down regulations on Texas abortion clinics and doctors, it rejected an appeal to reinstate laws in Mississippi and Wisconsin that would place similar requirements on abortion doctors.
It also denied an appeal of a Washington state rule requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B or other emergency contraceptives despite their religious objections to doing so.
The court June 28 refused to hear appeals from Mississippi and Wisconsin challenging lower-court rulings blocking their laws similar to the one in Texas that require abortion doctors in the two states to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Federal appeals courts in Chicago and New Orleans had previously ruled against the states.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a statement that the court’s decision was “not surprising” after its rule on the Texas law. He had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas case.
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he was disappointed by the court’s Texas ruling and Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said the ruling endangers women’s lives.
According to The Associated Press, if Mississippi’s law had been enacted it would have likely led to the closure of the state’s only abortion clinic.
In a 5-3 vote June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on Texas abortion clinics that required them to comply with standards of ambulatory surgical centers and required their doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, challenged a 2013 state law, H.B. 2, placing the requirements on the state’s abortion clinics. Opponents of the law claimed the requirements were aimed at closing abortion clinics. But the state and many pro-life advocates maintained that the law protected women’s health.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups submitted a joint friend of the court brief in the case supporting the Texas law, which was similar to other state laws regulating abortion clinics across the country.
The Supreme Court also refused to hear an appeal from pharmacists who have religious objections to a Washington state law that requires pharmacies to dispense Plan B or other emergency contraceptives also called “morning after pills.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the appeal and Alito wrote a 15-page dissent against the court’s decision not to hear the case, calling it an “ominous sign.”
“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” he added.
Even before the Supreme Court issued a decision on whether it would take the case, the pharmacists’ case already had gathered 14 friend of the court briefs from supportive groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The case was filed with the court by the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. Kristen Waggoner, a senior counsel with the firm, said that the state of Washington allows pharmacists to refer customers to other pharmacists for just about any reason — except reasons of conscience – and the other 49 states allow conscience-based referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists Association and dozens more pharmacy associations.
Follow Zimmermann on Twitter @carolmaczim.

Courts rule on three cases impacting Mississippians

Posted on by
Reply

By Maureen Smith
JACKSON – Federal court decisions in three cases in the last weeks of June directly impact the work of the church in Mississippi. Federal Judge Carlton Reeves blocked the implementation of HB 1523, also known as the religious liberty law, hours before it was to go into effect Friday, July 1. Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a proposed law that would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Turning away the case means the last abortion clinic in Mississippi remains open. In the third case, a tie vote in the Supreme Court blocked a plan to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
The coincidence that the rulings all came during Fortnight for Freedom was not lost on local church leaders. “The U.S. bishops set aside these weeks for us to reflect on threats to religious liberty and to celebrate our protected American freedoms,” said Bishop Joseph Kopacz. “There is a certain irony to the fact that these all happened during the fortnight,” he added.
The bishop released a statement relating to the religious liberty law and the abortion case on Friday, July 1. “We must strike a just balance between church and state, not just for our own protection, but for the protection of other faiths and society as a whole,” wrote Bishop Kopacz. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in its statement on religious liberty states “‘This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.’ Once the state begins to limit rights of people of one faith, we must be concerned for people of all faiths and beliefs,” he added.
The bishop has emphasized from the start of the HB1523 debate this is not an issue of whom the church serves, but how.
“The Catholic Church welcomes everyone in our parishes, schools and service centers. We have and will continue to help anyone in need through Catholic Charities, schools and parish ministries, regardless of your faith, beliefs or background. And we will continue to raise our voices both in our churches and in our communities in defense of human dignity and justice,” he wrote. The full text of his statement is available on page 9.
The religious liberty law was originally meant to protect religious organizations from violating their beliefs regarding marriage. The church sought exemptions from performing civil unions between gay partners, placing foster children or adopting children to gay couples and from being forced to hire people in ministry or education positions whose lifestyles contradicted church teachings. Lawmakers added a host of provisions to the original bill and critics called the resulting legislation discriminatory. Earlier in the year, Bishop Kopacz released a statement explaining the stance of the Diocese of Jackson on the issue.
“The Diocese of Jackson supported and would continue to support a religious exemption on behalf of the mission of the Catholic Church with regard to education and social services. We would like to continue to provide these services while remaining faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church,” said the bishop in April. “The diocese had no involvement in the other portions of the bill that addressed business and government operations. The church will continue to work to protect its First Amendment right to worship, to educate and to serve in the public domain while respecting the dignity of all citizens,” he continued.
State Attorney General Jim Hood said he would have to think ‘long and hard’ before filing an appeal. “I believe in the free exercise of religion and there will be a case in the future in which the U.S. Supreme Court will better define our religious rights. This case, however, is not that vehicle,” he said. Governor Phil Bryant, however, has called for an appeal.
In his ruling, Judge Reeves called HB1523 unconstitutional because, he says, it “grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons. That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.” He goes on to say the rights of religious institutions are already protected under the First Amendment and do not need an additional protection. Another part of his ruling calls HB1523 unclear in its instructions in too many cases to which it might be applied.
In the second case, a lower court had blocked a Mississippi law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to be able to admit patients at local hospitals. “We are saddened at this country’s insistence on abortion, the destruction of innocent lives, and the laws that have been passed to support this continued destruction,” said Bishop Kopacz. “The laws requiring doctors to have admitting privileges, although seen as a roadblock for abortion facilities, are in reality a commitment to the good health of all,” he added. There is only one abortion clinic left in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For more on this case, see the related story on page1.
The final court action involves the work of immigrants’ rights advocates in Mississippi. Advocates have reported an uptick in law enforcement raids in Hispanic communities in the state since January and they expect those raids to continue so the center is stepping up its efforts to make sure immigrants know their rights. See page 8 for more on the ruling and what the Migrant Support Center is doing to address the rights of immigrants here. See related stories on page 8.
Bishop Kopacz said the church in Mississippi will continue to work for justice for all through political involvement and social justice outreach, especially on behaf of those on the margins of our communities while respecting the dignity of each person. “People of faith are called to be active in the political process – to protect the dignity of each human being and to make our communities stronger overall.”

High court takes on HHS, death penalty, but holds off on abortion cases

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court ruled on a handful of other cases involving issues of life and social justice before it ended its summer session. In a June 29 order, the High Court continued to shield several Pennsylvania religious institutions from having to provide employees with health care coverage that includes contraceptives.
The order in a case filed by the bishops and the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, Pennsylvania, their charitable institutions and a school said the government may not enforce the challenged provisions of the Affordable Care Act, pending final resolution of legal challenges on the merits of the institutions’ objections to what is known as the contraceptive mandate.
Justice Samuel Alito in April had granted an interim injunction to the Pennsylvania ministries.
No case challenging the mandate or the accommodation as applied to faith-based nonprofit institutions has yet reached the Supreme Court. Several federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled that religious rights are not substantially burdened by the process required for the accommodation. Only one circuit court, the 11th, granted an injunction – to EWTN, a Catholic media conglomerate. That court heard oral arguments in February over whether the company has a valid claim that spares it from following the procedures.
The Supreme Court has, however, acted in favor of faith-based institutions that are suing over the contraceptive mandate each time it has come to the high court. Five of those actions, including twice in the Pennsylvania cases, were about an injunction pending further litigation.
In another in a series of bitterly divided end-of-term cases, the Supreme Court June 29 upheld the execution protocol used by Oklahoma and several other states. The 5-4 ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito upheld lower courts that said the use of the drug midazolam in lethal injection does not violate Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling was among the last three opinions released, closing out the court’s 2014 term.
The majority opinion in Glossip v. Gross noted that it has been previously established multiple times that capital punishment is constitutional and only delved into whether the claims by Oklahoma death-row inmates that the effects of the drugs used in lethal injection are unnecessarily painful. Among the reasons Alito cited in upholding lower courts were that “the prisoners failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain.” Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas each filed concurring opinions. Alito’s majority ruling also was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Texas Catholic Conference expressed disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision June 29 which temporarily blocks Texas from enforcing new requirements on abortion clinics that would force many of them to close. The Texas law requires the clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers when performing abortions. Other provisions of the law, such as requiring abortion doctors to have hospital privileges and prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks gestation, were not affected.
In a June 9 ruling, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the law, and rejected pleas by abortion clinics to suspend its implementation while it is appealed. The Supreme Court ruling prevents enforcement of the law until the fall when the high court will decide if the justices should hear an appeal from a lower court. A June 30 statement from the Catholic conference, the public policy arm of the Texas Catholic bishops, said the bishops “grieve for the unborn children who will continue to die, and are concerned for the mothers who will subjected to substandard care, while the court delays until the fall to resolve this issue.”
The Supreme Court took no action in a challenge of a Mississippi law passed last year requiring doctors at the state’s only remaining abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. This means the law will remain on hold until the appeals process is complete.
Aside from announcing the disposition of other cases it has been asked to review, the court is not scheduled to conduct any further business in the public eye until the 2015 term opens Oct. 5.