The Supreme Court on Friday dealt a blow to Alabama pro-life advocates by declining to hear a case over a law which would ban the procedure with few exceptions.
The decision to punt on the case means that lower court rulings striking down the recently passed law banning dilation & evacuation abortions will stand, according to The Hill.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that he agreed the court should not hear the case, but called it a "stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control." -The Hill
"Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous 'undue burden' standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought," wrote Thomas.
The Justices have previously turned down similar cases from Indiana and Louisiana.
The Alabama law is among many challenging the timing, methods and providers of abortion that are headed toward the high court at a time when Chief Justice John Roberts and some of his colleagues have been seeking a lower profile.
That may not last for long. In February, the court temporarily blocked abortion restrictions in Louisiana that critics complained were virtually identical to Texas limits struck down by the justices in 2016. But it's likely the court will hear the state's appeal next term. -USA Today
Last year the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sympathized with Alabama, but ruled that the Supreme Court's previous rulings on abortion required that the state ban be struck down.
"The method involves tearing apart and extracting piece-by-piece from the uterus what was until then a living unborn child," wrote Judge Ed Carnes. "This is usually done during the 15-to-18 week stage of development, at which time the unborn child’s heart is already beating.
Carnes said, however, that "In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it."
The Supreme Court first put the case on its list for consideration in March but delayed action until now. In the meantime, it upheld an Indiana law requiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains following an abortion. But it refused to consider that state's effort to ban abortions based on sex, race or disability. -USA Today
"None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution," wrote USSC Justice Thomas on Friday, adding "Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous 'undue burden' standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought."