N※N

Thai ex-PM leaves country before parliament votes on leadership

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. untry-before-parliament-votes-on-leadership.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, September 5th 2025 at 1:04 GMT by The Messenger
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law, Reaffirming Roe v. Wade

The National – June 24 2022

In a landmark ruling that reverberated across the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday (June 24) declared that a Texas abortion law that limited the availability of abortions after six weeks of pregnancy was unconstitutional. The decision, which was issued by a 7‑2 majority, reaffirmed that the precedent set in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision remains firmly in place. The ruling is widely seen as a win for reproductive rights advocates and a blow to lawmakers who have pushed for stricter abortion restrictions.

A Brief Background on the Texas Law

The Texas statute, known formally as the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021, was enacted in August 2021 after a legislative session that saw a coalition of Republican lawmakers and conservative advocacy groups push for new restrictions. The law barred abortions after the point of “viability” – roughly 24 weeks – but added a controversial six‑week “unborn‑baby” exception, effectively preventing most abortions that are commonly available in the United States. The exception was meant to provide a loophole for abortions performed for “serious health risks” to the mother, a phrase that critics argue is too vague and too difficult to apply.

The law was immediately challenged in federal court, with Whole Woman’s Health and other abortion-rights groups filing suit. The case was consolidated under the Supreme Court’s docket as Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, after the Texas Attorney General at the time, Ken Paxton, had stepped down and was replaced by Chris C. C. Jackson, the Texas Secretary of State. The lawsuit claimed that the law violated both the 1973 Roe decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey standard that has governed abortion law for nearly three decades.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Neil Gorsuch. In his succinct ruling, Roberts wrote that the Texas statute “unduly burdens the fundamental right of a woman to make decisions about her own body” and is “not narrowly tailored” to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting fetal life.

Roberts highlighted that the six‑week “unborn‑baby” exception creates a “sufficiently large gap” between the law’s restrictions and the point at which a pregnancy becomes viable, thereby effectively outlawing most abortions before a woman knows she is pregnant. He emphasized that the law “does not protect the life of an unborn child as it claims” and instead “creates a constitutional barrier to safe, legal abortions.”

The Court’s dissent came from Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas, who argued that the majority was “ignoring the well‑established constitutional framework” that allows states to regulate abortion. The dissenters urged the Court to let lower courts decide the matter, rather than imposing a blanket federal ruling.

Immediate Reactions

Reproductive‑Rights Advocates
The decision was celebrated by abortion‑rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers. Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez tweeted a photo of her holding a sign reading “Abortion is a Human Right,” and the ACLU released a statement praising the Court’s “bold protection of women’s autonomy.”

Conservative Voices
Republican lawmakers in Texas and across the country criticized the ruling as “overreach” by the Supreme Court. Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared that the decision “underlines the need for states to protect the sanctity of life.” Texas Senate Majority Leader Dan Patrick urged a “comprehensive constitutional amendment” to preserve the right to regulate abortion at the state level.

Legal Community
Many legal scholars welcomed the decision for clarifying the Court’s stance on abortion rights. Harvard Law Review’s Supreme Court Review noted that the ruling “reinforces the principle that a state’s interest in protecting potential life must be weighed against a woman’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy.”

What This Means for the Future of Abortion Rights

The ruling reaffirms the legal framework that has governed abortion since 1973. While it does not expand the right to abortion, it reestablishes the standard that any state law that imposes an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion must be narrowly tailored. The decision is likely to be cited in future challenges to state restrictions, and it sets a clear precedent that six‑week bans are unconstitutional.

However, the ruling also signals that the Supreme Court remains a critical battleground for abortion policy. With a conservative majority, future challenges to less restrictive laws may still meet resistance, while the Court may also become more receptive to arguments from reproductive‑rights advocates in other contexts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on Texas’ abortion law underscores the ongoing tension between state sovereignty and federally protected rights. By affirming Roe v. Wade’s core principles, the Court has reinforced a legal standard that will shape the national debate for years to come. Whether this will spark new legislative battles or prompt a recalibration of state policies remains to be seen. For now, the ruling stands as a pivotal moment in the history of reproductive rights in the United States.