Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates Abortion Ban After Six Weeks of Pregnancy
By The Catonsville News
The Catonsville News
The state’s ban, which the Supreme Court reinstated this week, mandates that abortion-inducing drugs be administered by or under the direction of a physician. The drug involved is Mifegymiso, which acts similarly to the abortifacient RU486. The Supreme Court ruled that the ban is constitutional because, among other things, the state had to prove that Mifegymiso was necessary to preserve the mother’s health. The court also ruled that the state proved that the ban is “a narrowly tailored means of serving a compelling state interest.”
Mifegymiso is administered by inserting it into a woman’s cervix through a catheter, and taking it into the uterus through a tube. The drug induces a miscarriage within about two days.
The Supreme Court upheld the ban in the case of Carhart v. Stenberg in December 2012, but the state Attorney General at the time, Kenneth Tulloch, wanted a temporary stay put on the decision. That was denied by the Supreme Court in February in a brief order.
The state announced that Friday that it had won the case, and that it had decided not to seek an appeal.
The attorney general is expected to announce that decision on the abortion ban in the next few days. It will also be interesting to see if the state takes any action in court to defend the ban in other cases in which it is challenged.
“We continue to evaluate the state’s case and are optimistic that the court will reaffirm the constitutionality of the law,” said Tulloch in a press release. “I look forward to continuing the court’s focus on a woman’s right to self-determination and on the rights of physicians.”
CATONSVILLE — The state’s ban, which the Supreme Court reinstated this week, mandates that abortion-inducing drugs be administered by or under the direction of a physician. The drug involved is Mifegymiso, which acts similarly to the abortifacient RU486. The Supreme Court ruled that the ban is constitutional because, among other things, the state had to prove that Mifegymiso was necessary to preserve the mother’s health. The court also ruled that the state proved that the ban is “a narrowly tailored means of serving a compelling state interest.”
M
