Georgia judge overturns state's six-week abortion ban

[Chris]

Georgia judge overturns state's six-week abortion ban

A Georgia law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy cannot be enforced, a state judge ruled on Tuesday, handing a victory to Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups that challenged the restriction when it took effect this summer.

Judge Robert McBurney of the Superior Court of Fulton County said the law was void at the time it was passed in 2019 under the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a federal right to abortion in 1973.

McBurney said the state would have to pass the law again now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe for the ban to be valid. The 2019 law was "plainly unconstitutional when drafted, voted upon, and enacted," McBurney wrote in his opinion.

...A spokesperson for Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, said the state had "already filed a notice of appeal" on Tuesday afternoon, and would "continue to fight for the lives of Georgia’s unborn children."

...McBurney did not rule on whether the law violated the Georgia Constitution, leaving open the possibility that state lawmakers could pass the same legislation in the future.

...Abortion rights advocates had argued before the judge in October that the law violated Georgians' fundamental rights to liberty and privacy under the state constitution and put women's health at risk....

This is on the Serious Side under The Law and Justice Room and I'd like to confine discussion to discussion of the law and the judge's ruling and not turn into yet another abortion thread.

I have two general objections to the ruling unrelated to abortion.

One, I object to voiding a law such as this simply based on the time of its enactment. When it was written, abortion "rights" were recognized under Roe/Casey. But it's a trigger law that went into effect under a change in national law under Dobbs that ended the "right" as unconstitutional. Basically, to me, the judge is making an unconstitutional ruling.

Two, the plaintiffs in the case argued the law violated Georgia's Constitution but the judge did not rule on that but instead on the US Constitution. It reminds me of Roberts's ruling on Obamacare. A judge should not substitute a plaintiff's plea, a judge should not change roles and advocate for the plaintiff.

I base these objections on reading media versions of the case like that above. I have not read the entire opinion which can be found at https://drive.google.com/file/d/11yT...kzHzRYRNb/view.

[DGUtley]

void when passed. - I'll have to think on that one.

[carolina73]

If it was done specifically as a trigger law then I would think the judge is wrong.

If it was just passed as a law to try to raise a Constitutional challenge then it may not actually represent how individuals would have really voted.

[LescoBrandon]

Just re-pass it.

[Chris]

If it was done specifically as a trigger law then I would think the judge is wrong.

If it was just passed as a law to try to raise a Constitutional challenge then it may not actually represent how individuals would have really voted.

You might be right. The judge in his opinion says nothing of the bill HB 481, mentioning triggering, and the bill itself says nothing.

HB 481: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legisla...0192020/187013

Basically what HB 481 does is recognize the preborn as a person and applies those portions of the 14th amendment that applies to any person. But I see nothing that triggers on voiding Roe/Casey in it.

[Tahuyaman]

void when passed. - I'll have to think on that one.

The reasoning sounds a little flawed.

[countryboy]

Way to waste the people's time and money judge.

[OLD GUY IN FLORIDA]

I will never understand the "Law". Things that seem perfectly clear to me are often thrown out or twisted to the point of no return. I don't understand how if the Supreme Court says there is no Constitutional right to an abortion this judge could say this law violated the Constitution. All this really tells me is there are judges with agendas and the law be dammed

[Chris]

Well, I think @carolina73 is right, it's not a trigger law as I thought. And reading the judge's opinion, there seems to be precedent in GA courts to apply the laws existing when the law was written even if many years later.

That doesn't mean I agree with it. There are all sorts of cases started on existing laws but are dropped when they reach court because the law changed.

[Chris]

I will never understand the "Law". Things that seem perfectly clear to me are often thrown out or twisted to the point of no return. I don't understand how if the Supreme Court says there is no Constitutional right to an abortion this judge could say this law violated the Constitution. All this really tells me is there are judges with agendas and the law be dammed

Since the laws affect the people, they ought to be written in plain English the people can understand so they/we know what to expect.