Constitutional question about federal funding for abortion

[DMB]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/is-the-ban-on-federally-f_b_445151.html


Since the Supreme Court appears receptive to rejecting precedent in letting corporations overwhelm our elective system, possibly they should re-examine the constitutionality of the ban on federal funding of abortions in its current form or as proposed in the new health care legislation. One need not disrespect the pro-life movement by recognizing that it has a strong religious basis. But perceived sin does not the law make. Abortion is legal in this country. It should not be exempted from coverage or funding because of religious beliefs.

What chance is there that the current US Supreme Court would accept this argument?

[Pandora]

<fingers crossed> I hope, I hope, I hope they listen to reason and go with that argument. Although I'm not sure why he's got the reference to corporations in there.

[Worldtraveller]

The problem with something like this is that a person has to have a reason to file suit. So what will happen:

The fed gov will refuse to pay the funds for an abortion. The woman will either have to fund it herself or carry through with the pregnancy.

(let's assume she and the baby both live for the rest)

Normally, the SCOTUS would probably dismiss the case on standing, since she's no longer pregnant. It's a cheap sidestep, but something they've gotten good at lately.

The suit would have to be for reimbursement of funds for the procedure, or better, for child support from the government, which I think would be funny but would also be dismissed on some grounds or another.

My bet is the courts won't ever touch this one, mostly because of the 9 month window, and it will be up to congress to eventually change the law.

[Pandora]

It strikes me as kind of odd because a large number of private insurers cover terminations of pregnancy as a normal part of their business. Not all, of course, but the majority. As such, setting up a rule whereby federal funding can't be used for terminations is a diversion from how business is normally done, and might attract more attention. So maybe it will raise some SC eyebrows.

But I doubt it.

Geez. I'm really getting cynical towards the government - even more so that I was previously. That's kind of scary, folks.