fbpx
Articles

The case(s) that could determine the next SCOTUS abortion ruling

/
January 24, 2019

The Supreme Court convened last week at the same time as the March for Life and ERLC’s Evangelicals for Life 2019. There continued to be significant buzz about whether Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be overturned in the near future by the next abortion-related case to reach the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, then it would be up to state governments to determine the legality and regulations on abortion throughout our country.

This context is important because it is state-level legislation on common-sense abortion regulations that make up the dozens of cases winding their way through our federal and state courts. One of these cases (or a collection of these cases) could determine the next Supreme Court case on abortion.

Mary E. Harned, J.D., at the Charlotte Lozier Institute put together an excellent legal analysis of all of these cases last fall, their current status, and what comes next. Here’s what you need to know about these state laws and these cases:

Bans on general funding to abortion providers: The 6th Circuit is currently reviewing a case involving an Ohio law preventing the Ohio Department of Health from contracting to provide funds from nonabortion-related federal health programs to abortion providers and affiliates.

Restricting/banning second trimester dismemberment abortions: Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia all have laws restricting second-trimester Dilation and Evacuation abortions (D&E), otherwise known as dismemberment abortions. The laws from Texas and Arkansas are being heard by federal appellate courts, and most of the others are making their way through state or federal courts.

Bans on discriminatory abortions: Many states have passed laws banning abortions when they are elected due to the sex, race, or genetic anomaly of the baby. Planned Parenthood has filed suit on Indiana’s law, and there’s another suit against Ohio’s law banning abortions of children diagnosed with Down syndrome. The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to take up one of these cases originating in Indiana.

Admitting privileges: One of the Supreme Court’s last abortion-related cases was Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a narrow ruling declaring a Texas law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to be unconstitutional. Similar types of laws that are distinct and different in Louisiana, Missouri, and Kentucky are currently being litigated. These cases are less likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court given their recent ruling.

Chemical abortion regulations: Missouri and Arkansas laws requiring abortion-inducing drug providers to contract with physicians to handle complications are currently being challenged in courts.

Mandatory ultrasound and reflection periods: A Kentucky law requiring abortion providers to perform ultrasounds, display and describe the images, and audibly play the baby’s heartbeat is being challenged in court, along with an Indiana law requiring an 18-hour reflection period after an ultrasound, are being challenged in court.

Parental involvement: A law in Alabama modified which judicial proceedings are required for a minor to bypass parental consent requirements before an abortion. This law is being challenged at the appellate level.

Medicaid funding to abortion provider cases: These cases relate to state laws or state executive branch regulations that prohibit abortion providers from receiving money in various Medicaid programs. Challenges to these laws have claimed various legal arguments, which have had varying levels of success as cases wind through nearly every appellate circuit in the country. This past December, the Supreme Court rejected the most likely case in this category, with Justice Thomas arguing in a dissent joined by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Alito that the Court was ducking the case to avoid ruling on any case that possibly involved abortion, even if the legal question had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Over the next several years, one or more of these cases will reach the Supreme Court. If the Court acts as it has in the past, we should expect a narrow ruling that modifies our nation’s abortion jurisprudence rather than completely overturns it. It could, however, also give the Court an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

We will keep you updated.

Palmer Williams

Palmer specializes in legal and policy analysis related to international human rights, sanctity of life, and government affairs. As a licensed attorney specializing in international law, she has extensive experience advocating for human rights on the international stage, including at the United Nations. She earned her Juris Doctor from Vanderbilt … Read More

Related Resources

Abortion

Explainer: Florida Supreme Court upholds 15-week abortion ban

By ERLC Staff

Abortion

Explainer: Supreme Court hears oral arguments on access to abortion pill

By ERLC Staff

Abortion

How you can join the life-saving work of pregnancy resource centers

By Karen Roseberry, Lindsay Nicolet, Todd Unzicker

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24