Justices allow Arkansas to enforce abortion restrictions

Legal Compliance

The Supreme Court is allowing Arkansas to put in effect restrictions on how abortion pills are administered. Critics of a challenged state

law say it could effectively end medication abortions in the state.

The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting an appeal from the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arkansas that asked the court to

review an appeals court ruling and reinstate a lower court order that had blocked the law from taking effect. The law says doctors who

provide abortion pills must hold a contract with another physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital and who would agree to

handle complications.

The law is similar to a provision in Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed

the court order barring enforcement of the law, but put its ruling on hold while Planned Parenthood appealed to the Supreme Court.

The legal fight over the law is not over, but the state is now free to enforce the law at least for the time being.

Planned Parenthood has said that if the law stands, Arkansas would be the only state where women would not have access to a pair of

drugs that end pregnancies: mifepristone, which makes it difficult for a fetus to attach to the uterine wall, and misoprostol, which causes

the body to expel it, similar to a miscarriage.

The organization offers pills to end pregnancies at clinics in Fayetteville and Little Rock but says it cannot find any Arkansas obstetrician

willing to handle hospital admissions. Preventing women from obtaining medication abortions would create an undue burden on their right

to an abortion, Planned Parenthood says. Undue burden is the standard set by the Supreme Court to measure whether restrictions go too

far in limiting women who want an abortion.

Supreme Court rejects inmate's appeal in slaying of 3

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined the appeal of an Ohio inmate who has long maintained his innocence in the 1994 slaying of three

people.

The court's Tuesday decision involves the case of Kevin Keith. He is serving a life sentence for killing two women and a 4-year-old girl in

what prosecutors said was retaliation for his arrest in a drug sweep.

Lawyers for Keith say the personnel file of a state forensics investigator who worked on his case contains allegations she had a habit of

providing police departments answers they wanted in cases.

Attorneys for the 54-year-old Keith, who is black, also say the file shows the investigator used racial slurs against co-workers.

Prosecutors say there's no evidence the file would have made a difference at trial.

Related listings

  • Kansas court avoids ruling on execution for student's death

    Kansas court avoids ruling on execution for student's death

    Legal Compliance 06/15/2018

    The Kansas Supreme Court has postponed a decision on whether the state can execute a man convicted of kidnapping, raping and strangling a 19-year-old college student.The high court on Friday upheld the capital murder conviction of Justin Eugene Thurb...

  • Ohio's top court to hear arguments on promotions tax dispute

    Ohio's top court to hear arguments on promotions tax dispute

    Legal Compliance 06/13/2018

    The Ohio Supreme Court plans to hear arguments in a dispute over promotions including bobbleheads and other items offered by the Cincinnati Reds to ticket buyers.At issue is whether the Reds are exempt from paying tax on the purchase of the promotion...

  • Court upholds Phoenix law over same-sex wedding invitations

    Court upholds Phoenix law over same-sex wedding invitations

    Legal Compliance 06/07/2018

    An Arizona appeals court on Thursday upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination law that makes it illegal for businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples because of religion.The ruling comes days after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Colorado bake...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.