Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

=== State laws regarding ''Roe'' ===
At the state level, there have been many laws about abortion. In the decade after ''Roe'', most states passed laws protecting medical workers with a [[conscientious objection to abortion]]. Nine states which had legalized abortion or loosened abortion restrictions prior to ''Roe'' already had statutory protection for those who did not want to participate in or perform an abortion. As of 2011, forty-seven states and the District of Columbia had laws allowing certain people to decline to perform certain actions or provide information related to abortion or reproductive health.<ref>[https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=elj The Constitutional Right Not to Kill] by Mark L. Rienzi, ''Emory Law Journal'', Volume 62, Issue 1, 2012, pages 148–152 (pages 29–33 of the pdf)</ref> At the federal level, the [[Church Amendment of 1973]] was proposed to protect private hospitals objecting to abortion from being deprived of funding. It first passed the Senate, 92–1, then a slightly modified version passed the House, 372–1, and the final bill which contained it passed the Senate 94–0.<ref>[[Douglas NeJaime]] & [[Reva Siegel]], [http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/j.2516.NeJaime-Siegel.2591_r4r9q2au.pdf ''Conscience Wars: Complicity-Based Conscience Claims in Religion and Politics''], 124 [[Yale Law Journal]] 2516 (2015).</ref> Justice Blackmun supported this and other regulations protecting individual physicians and entire hospitals operated by religious denominations.<ref>{{Cite journal|pmid=16273974|year=2005|last1=Appel|first1=J. M|title=Judicial diagnosis 'conscience' vs. Care how refusal clauses are reshaping the rights revolution|journal=Medicine and Health, Rhode Island|volume=88|issue=8|pages=279–81}}</ref>

Some states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if ''Roe v. Wade'' is overturned. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Washington.<ref name="Vestal" /> Other states have enacted so-called [[trigger law]]s that would take effect in the event that ''Roe v. Wade'' is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota.<ref name="Vestal">Vestal, Christine. [http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2006/06/22/states-probe-limits-of-abortion-policy "States probe limits of abortion policy"], Stateline.org (June 11, 2007).</ref> Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes against abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if ''Roe'' were reversed.<ref>Marcus, Frances Frank. [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D71738F93BA35754C0A96F948260 "Louisiana Moves Against Abortion"], ''The New York Times'' (July 8, 1989).</ref>

On April 16, 2012, Mississippi House Bill 1390 was signed into law.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120420045140/http://www.governorbryant.com/governor-phil-bryant-signs-house-bill-1390/ Governor Phil Bryant signs House Bill 1390], ''governorbryant.com'', April 16, 2012 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120420045140/http://www.governorbryant.com/governor-phil-bryant-signs-house-bill-1390/ Archived] April 20, 2012) and [https://thedmarchives.com/gov-phil-bryant-signs-house-bill-1390/ Gov. Phil Bryant signs House Bill 1390] by Lacey Russell, ''The Daily Mississippian'', April 17, 2012, posted to the newspaper archive on September 30, 2012, ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211221191859/https://thedmarchives.com/gov-phil-bryant-signs-house-bill-1390/ Archived] December 21, 2021)</ref> The law attempted to make abortion unfeasible without having to overturn ''Roe v. Wade''.<ref>LZ Granderson [http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/opinion/granderson-mississippi-abortion/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 "Mississippi's end run around abortion"], ''[[CNN]]'' (July 12, 2012).</ref> Judge [[Daniel Porter Jordan III]] of the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi]] granted an injunction against the law on July 13, 2012.<ref>[https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/878-F-Supp-2d-714-S-D-Miss-2012-C-A-3-12cv436-DPJ-FKB-Jackson-Women-s-Health-Organization-v-Currier-601822402 878 F.Supp.2d 714 (S.D.Miss. 2012), C. A. 3:12cv436-DPJ-FKB, Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier], ''case-law.vlex.com'', July 13, 2012</ref> On April 15, 2013, he issued another injunction which only applied to a part of the law which required the individual performing the abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.<ref>[https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130416a85 Jackson Women's Health v. Currier, Civil Action No. 3:12cv436-DPJ-FKB], ''leagle.com'', April 15, 2013 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20191210045223/https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130416a85 Archived] December 10, 2019)</ref> On July 29, 2014, a three-judge panel from the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] upheld the injunction against part of the law, with Judge [[Emilio M. Garza]] dissenting. The ruling especially relied on a case unrelated to ''Roe'' which was decided "nearly fifty years before the right to an abortion was found in the [[Penumbra (law)|penumbras]] of the Constitution".<ref>[https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/13-60599/13-60599-2014-07-29.pdf?ts=1411008932 No. 13-60599 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit], July 29, 2014, ''cases.justia.com'' and [https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/07/29/court-rules-in-favor-of-miss-abortion-clinic/13322317/ Court rules in favor of Miss. abortion clinic] by Emily Le Coz, ''The Clarion-Ledger'', July 29, 2014</ref> On February 18, 2015, Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, but they declined to hear it on June 28, 2016.<ref>[https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/currier-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/ Currier v. Jackson Women's Health Organization], ''scotusblog.com'', published by Tom Goldstein and edited by James Romoser, ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210506110259/https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/currier-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/ Archived] May 6, 2021) and [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/14-997.htm No. 14-997], ''Docket Files'', U.S. Supreme Court ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210511220918/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/14-997.htm Archived] May 11, 2021)</ref>

The [[Human Life Protection Act]] was signed by Alabama governor [[Kay Ivey]] on May 14, 2019, in hopes of challenging ''Roe v. Wade'' in the Supreme Court.<ref>[https://governor.alabama.gov/newsroom/2019/05/governor-ivey-issues-statement-after-signing-the-alabama-human-life-protection-act/ Governor Ivey Issues Statement After Signing the Alabama Human Life Protection Act], May 15, 2019, ''Office of Alabama Governor''</ref> It includes exceptions for a serious health risk to the mother or a [[Lethality|lethal]] fetal [[Birth defect|anomaly]], but otherwise it will make abortion a [[felony]] for the abortion doctor if it goes into effect. Women subjected to an abortion will not be criminally [[Culpability#In law|culpable]] or civilly [[Legal liability|liable]] under the law.<ref>[https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alabama-abortion-ban-passes-read-the-bill.html Alabama abortion law passes: Read the bill] by Leada Gore, May 16, 2019, ''Birmingham News''</ref> On October 29, 2019, Judge [[Myron H. Thompson|Myron Thompson]] for the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama]] issued a preliminary injunction against the law.<ref>[https://www.al.com/news/2019/10/federal-judge-blocks-alabama-abortion-ban.html Federal judge blocks Alabama abortion ban] by Abbey Crain, October 29, 2019, ''Birmingham News''</ref>

In May 2021, Texas lawmakers passed Senate Bill 8, creating the [[Texas Heartbeat Act]], banning abortions except in cases of medical emergency as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected.<ref>[https://webservices.sos.state.tx.us/legbills/files/RS87/SB8.pdf S.B. No. 8], ''Texas State Senate''</ref> This is typically as early as six weeks into pregnancy and often before women know they are pregnant. The law established that any Texas resident who is not a state or local government employee or official can sue [[abortion clinic]]s and doctors who are known to be "[[aiding and abetting]]" abortion procedures after six weeks.<ref name=cnntexassept12021>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/01/politics/texas-abortion-supreme-court-sb8-roe-wade/index.html | title = Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction | first= Ariane | last = De Vogue | date = September 1, 2021 | access-date = September 2, 2021 | work = [[CNN]] }}</ref> A clause forbids anyone who impregnated an abortion patient through rape, [[sexual assault]], or incest to sue concerning the patient.<ref>[https://webservices.sos.state.tx.us/legbills/files/RS87/SB8.pdf S.B. No. 8], ''Texas State Senate'', page 9</ref> The [[Bill (law)#Enactment and after|enactment]] date was September 1, 2021, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, declined a request to block enforcement of the law that day.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf 21A24 Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson 594 U. S. ____ (2021)], September 1, 2021, ''supremecourt.gov''</ref> On October 22, 2021, the Court again did not block the law's enforcement, and agreed to hear arguments for ''[[United States v. Texas (2021)|United States v. Texas]]'' on November 1, 2021.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2021/21-588 Oral Argument – Audio, United States v. Texas, Docket Number: 21-588], ''supremecourt.gov'', November 1, 2021</ref> They limited the question to a review of [[Standing (law)|standing]].<ref>{{cite web|date=October 22, 2021|title=United States v. Texas, No. 21A85 (No. 21-588), 595 U. S. ____ (Sept. 1, 2021)|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a85_5h25.pdf |website=Supreme Court of the United States}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Chung|first=Andrew|date=2021-10-22|title=U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas abortion ban|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-texas-abortion-ban-2021-10-22/|access-date=2021-10-22}}</ref> On December 10, 2021, the Court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that lower courts should not have accepted it.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-588_c07d.pdf (Slip Opinion), 595 U. S. United States v. Texas (2021), No. 21–588 (21A85)], ''supremecourt.gov'', December 10, 2021</ref> This decision allows lawsuits against the executive directors of Texas's medical, nursing, and pharmacy licensing boards and also against the executive commissioner of the [[Texas Health and Human Services Commission]], but not certain other lawsuits seeking to overturn the law.<ref>[https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/supreme-court-issues-opinion-on-texas-abortion-law-challenges.html Supreme Court allows lawsuit challenging Texas abortion ban to continue but keeps law in effect for now] by Kevin Breuninger and Dan Mangan, ''CNBC'', December 10, 2021</ref>