High court rejects review of Arizona's 20-week abortion ban
January 13th, 2014
09:40 AM ET
6 months ago

High court rejects review of Arizona's 20-week abortion ban

Washington (CNN) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned aside Arizona's appeal to reinstate its law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

A federal appeals court last year said the restrictions were unconstitutional.

The high court's refusal without comment to intervene now means the provisions passed in 2012 cannot be enforced.

Twelve states have similar laws, shortening the period the high court established four decades ago, after it said abortion should be legal until viability, when a fetus is generally believed to survive outside the womb. Current medical science puts that at about 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Legal challenges in other states are working their way through the courts, including in Texas, which passed a variety of measures over access to abortion.

The case is Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).


Filed under: Abortion • Arizona • Supreme Court
soundoff (237 Responses)
  1. Al-NY,NY

    another loss for the religious fanatics and their cronies.....awwww

    January 13, 2014 09:47 am at 9:47 am |
  2. rs

    And another Republican, ALEC-fueled law bites the dust. Pretty funny as the GOP keeps saying they fly by the Constitution.

    January 13, 2014 09:49 am at 9:49 am |
  3. Rudy NYC

    This should give Republicans another major social issue on which to ride over the cliff duirng an election year. Just keep feeding them all of the rope they want. They just can't seem to get enough of it.

    January 13, 2014 09:56 am at 9:56 am |
  4. bspurloc

    loss for the christian taliban.
    religion is a disease we need a cure for.

    January 13, 2014 09:57 am at 9:57 am |
  5. alf564

    When sponsors of this way of life start PAYING for all the children that are born due to the actual no abortions then we can talk. Until then, these want to be dictators should just SHUT UP !

    January 13, 2014 09:58 am at 9:58 am |
  6. The Griot

    Legalese is so convoluted. In ENGLISH, does this mean Arizona can or cannot restrict abortions?

    January 13, 2014 09:59 am at 9:59 am |
  7. sammy750

    hehe, bet Horne and Brewer is MAD

    January 13, 2014 09:59 am at 9:59 am |
  8. disanitnodicos

    20 weeks. I guess that's 5 months. Let me Google fetus at 5 months and see what we're talking about here...Wow!

    January 13, 2014 09:59 am at 9:59 am |
  9. Tom

    So we can now continue to kill 5 month old babies. Wow

    Why not leave it up to the mom at the get go?

    January 13, 2014 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  10. JLS639

    Good. Now, let's get these awful laws in Texas thrown out.

    January 13, 2014 10:05 am at 10:05 am |
  11. Sailirish7

    Sigh....It's been 30 years+ folks. Roe v Wade ain't going anywhere...

    January 13, 2014 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  12. Sniffit

    Functionally, this is good news. RWNJs need to be stopped. It would be nice, however, if the conservatives on the SCOTUS didn't keep arranging to avoid ruling on these things because they're so averse to having to follow precedent. Ruling on this law in favor of AZ would have required it be struck down OR a flagrant abandonment of precedent. That pesky Constitution again...inconveniencing the RWNJ agenda.

    January 13, 2014 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  13. D.

    Yeah for the ones that did not vote anti abortion. Let the family decide what is best for them and not the STATE. We are all mature adults that can care for ourselves in the best ways possible. Not all of us are in the same situation. Therefore, laws at time are not the right thing. Too many laws just upset the apple cart.

    January 13, 2014 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  14. wendel

    thank you court. Lets talk jobs and economy. Repos and red states make it seem like women are just running around having abortions all the time.

    January 13, 2014 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  15. blakenaustin

    What a sick nation we have become. The Supreme Court rules that protecting the rights of unborn children over 20 weeks is unconstitutional. Immoral, heartless, barbaric, uncivilized.

    January 13, 2014 10:20 am at 10:20 am |
  16. Fair is Fair

    Rudy NYC

    This should give Republicans another major social issue on which to ride over the cliff duirng an election year. Just keep feeding them all of the rope they want. They just can't seem to get enough of it.
    ---------
    Yeah... too bad for the 5 month old baby, as long as you think your "team" scores political points, right?

    January 13, 2014 10:21 am at 10:21 am |
  17. glauber

    More wasted effort by Tom Horne. Sheesh, talk about a guy who's been successful at absolutely nothing since taking statewide office, first as state Secretary of Education and now as Attorney General. You'd think those dopes in AZ would elect someone who actually made sense when they spoke...actually that might be a bit too much to expect.

    January 13, 2014 10:22 am at 10:22 am |
  18. kahuna

    Pretty amazing how the party that wants the government out of our lives and no regulations, wants the government in your life when they want it.

    January 13, 2014 10:22 am at 10:22 am |
  19. Fawn

    While I am completely for the right to choose, I think abortions after 23 weeks should be illegal, the fetus can survive outside the womb at that point, with of course help from medical professionals but still, when a fetus is to the point that it can survive outside the mothers body, it's no different than murder. Unless their is something severely wrong with that child that option shouldn't even be on the table, it's no different than the woman who throws her newborn in the trash can. I think 20 weeks is plenty of time to decide what you need to do.

    January 13, 2014 10:22 am at 10:22 am |
  20. Whatever123

    @Tom

    "So we can now continue to kill 5 month old babies. Wow"

    No – women can chose to abort their 20 week old fetus. This has NOTHING to do with babies and killing. It has to do with you don't have to have an abortion if you don't want one, but you can't force your decision onto a woman.

    January 13, 2014 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
  21. RCM

    Choice should always be up to the woman, not politicians.

    January 13, 2014 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
  22. Jack

    Tom 10:01-- they are not babies until they see the "light of day"-- go back to school

    January 13, 2014 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
  23. bizzaro

    its a strange world where people celebrate abortions – you are cheering the decision to end a life. anyone who has seen a premie baby knows how tragic this is.

    January 13, 2014 10:26 am at 10:26 am |
  24. Fair is Fair

    Jack

    Tom 10:01– they are not babies until they see the "light of day"– go back to school.
    -------–
    Yeah... it's that 18 inch trip down the birth canal that magically makes life happen.

    January 13, 2014 10:34 am at 10:34 am |
  25. tom l

    So I did just google what is going at 20 weeks. I'm not sure how/why liberals on here would be celebrating this ruling. The only word that comes to mind is fanatical. I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, because they do. But the question is: is this a good thing?

    How your baby's growing:

    Your baby weighs about 10 1/2 ounces now. He's also around 6 1/2 inches long from head to bottom and about 10 inches from head to heel — about the size of a banana. (For the first 20 weeks, when a baby's legs are curled up against his torso and hard to measure, measurements are taken from the top of his head to his bottom — the "crown to rump" measurement. After 20 weeks, he's measured from head to toe.)

    He's swallowing more these days, which is good practice for his digestive system. He's also producing meconium, a black, sticky by-product of digestion. This gooey substance will accumulate in his bowels, and you'll see it in his first soiled diaper (some babies pass meconium in the womb or during delivery).

    January 13, 2014 10:34 am at 10:34 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10