'First Priority' Motion Filed to Block Abortion Ban
“Our first priority is to block this law from going into effect during the pendency of this litigation,” said ACLU Georgia Legal Director Sean J. Young.“I think this is a very important step,” said ACLU Georgia Executive Director Andrea Young.
July 23, 2019 at 11:58 AM
4 minute read
Advocacy groups that have already filed a constitutional challenge to Georgia's abortion ban asked a federal judge Tuesday to enjoin the state from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.
“Our first priority is to block this law from going into effect during the pendency of this litigation,” ACLU Georgia Legal Director Sean J. Young told the Daily Report.
Young represents SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and numerous others who have sued Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Attorney General Chris Carr and prosecutors around the state in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They allege the abortion ban created by House Bill 481 is unconstitutional and violates U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The case has been assigned to Judge Steve Jones.
Attorney General Chris Carr, tasked with defending the state, declined to comment.
Young said it's too soon to tell how long it will take to schedule briefings and a hearing. “But the immediate priority is to block this law before January 2020,” he said.
The document filed Tuesday said the “balance of harm tips decidedly” in favor of SisterSong and the other advocacy groups challenging the ban.
“While plaintiffs and their patients and members will suffer numerous irreparable harms without an injunction, defendants will suffer no injury whatsoever; plaintiffs' requested relief will simply preserve the status quo of nearly five decades,” the motion said.
“I think this is a very important step,” said ACLU Georgia Executive Director Andrea Young, who is also a lawyer. “We want women in Georgia to be assured that we're fighting to defend their constitutional rights. We're going to do everything in our power to make sure it never takes effect.”
In laying out precedent and legal reasoning for the injunction, the document filed Tuesday gives a preview of the arguments to come.
The law bans abortion after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected with ultrasound monitoring equipment. Proponents have used the term “heartbeat bill” to describe this and similar laws recently passed in other states. Those opposed to the bans say that name is intentionally misleading and used to incite an emotional reaction.
“In a typically developing embryo, cells that eventually form the basis for development of the heart later in pregnancy produce cardiac activity that is generally detectable at approximately six weeks from a women's last menstrual period,” the document filed Tuesday said.
At that point, many women don't know they're pregnant. Even if they do, they likely would not have had time to confirm pregnancy and schedule a medical appointment. “The great majority of abortions take place at or after that point,” the memo said. The embryonic stage of pregnancy lasts 10 weeks, when the fetal stage begins. Viability comes months later.
Viability—the ability of a baby to live apart from the mother—is the standard in the landmark Supreme Court decision for Roe v. Wade in 1973.
The document filed Tuesday includes extensive cites to Roe and other decisions upholding it, starting with Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992.
“Since Roe, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that a 'woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce,'” the motion said. “Therefore, a ban on abortion at any point before viability is per se unconstitutional, no matter what interests the state asserts to support it.”
The memo supporting the motion also took issue with the personhood provision in the Georgia law intended as a way to defeat Roe v. Wade. HB 481 defines and embryo or fetus as a “natural person” the same as “any human being.” The document said defining a “natural person” as “any human being including an unborn child” makes not only this law but other Georgia laws unconstitutionally vague.
“Thus, every time the term 'person' or 'human being' appears in the Georgia Code—and they appear hundreds of times—it must be read to include in utero embryos/fetuses at any stage of development,” the motion said. “Given this broad reach, it is unsurprising that the Personhood Definition renders numerous criminal and civil provisions of the Georgia Code unclear.”
The case is SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Brian Kemp, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-02973-SCJ.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trial Begins for Man Accused of Killing Ga. Nursing Student Laken Riley
5 minute read'Rebound' In Demand For Legal Services Places Southeast Among Top 3 Regions In U.S.
4 minute readMaryland Atty Pushes Judge to Grant Discovery in Reverse Discrimination Suit Against King & Spalding
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madicon, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250