Appeals court rejects Mich. abortion law
Legal News Center
[##_1L|1293825194.jpg|width="130" height="92" alt=""|_##]A federal appeals court Monday rejected Michigan's attempt to ban a procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion, ruling the law unconstitutional because it could also prohibit other abortion procedures. A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal said the Michigan Legislature would have been "virtually guaranteed" a favorable result on appeal had it copied an Ohio law that the 6th Circuit already has upheld.
"It instead opted to use statutory language that pushed almost every boundary that the Supreme Court has imposed for these types of laws," the judges said.
Previous attempts by Michigan lawmakers to stop the procedure were struck down by federal courts in 1997 and 2001.
The U.S. Supreme Court in April upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, with the majority opinion carefully distinguishing the controversial procedure from a more common abortion method used in the second trimester of pregnancy. The latter was unaffected by the ruling.
The appeals panel affirmed a Detroit district judge's opinion that the 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act in Michigan places an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion.
Abortion rights groups have said the law - unlike the federal ban and the law in Ohio - overreached and would have banned pre-viable abortions, including the most common method of second-trimester abortion. The appeals court agreed.
"The Michigan statute contains no similar exception or clear definitions that would avoid sweeping up protected abortion procedures within its prohibition," the court wrote.
The Michigan Legislature approved the abortion law in June 2004. Hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions that allowed the bill to become law with only the approval of the House and Senate - both of which were controlled by Republicans at the time - after Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed it.
Related listings
-
Gonzales outlines new DOJ efforts to counter crime
Legal News Center 06/02/2007US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Friday announced draft legislation to combat violent crime that would increase penalties, extend the statute of limitations for prosecution, and create separate statutory prohibitions against violent crime by ille...
-
Top Lawyer, Under Fire, May Depart
Legal News Center 06/01/2007[##_1L|1217562115.jpg|width="90" height="119" alt=""|_##]William S. Lerach, one of the most powerful securities class-action lawyers in the nation, is considering plans to leave the law firm he founded three years ago. In a hastily called meeting thi...
-
US immigration courts inconsistent in asylum cases
Legal News Center 05/31/2007US immigration courts are inconsistent in granting asylum to applicants, according to a new study by three law professors to be published in the Stanford Law Review. The professors found that factors that contributed to the outcome of applications fo...

Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.