Tag Archives: Unconstitutional

Iowa’s ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion ban ruled unconstitutional

Anti-abortion marchers rally at the Supreme Court during the 46th annual March for Life in Washington, U.S., January 18, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

By Rich McKay

(Reuters) – Iowa’s “fetal heartbeat” law, the most restrictive abortion ban in the United States, was declared unconstitutional Tuesday, as it violates the Iowa state constitution, a state judge ruled.

Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the restriction in May 2018, outlawing the procedure after a fetal heartbeat is detected, often at six weeks and before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

In the ruling, posted online, District Court Judge Michael Huppert wrote, “It is undisputed that such cardiac activity is detectable well in advance of the fetus becoming viable.”

A fetus that is viable outside the womb, usually at 24 weeks, is widely considered the threshold in the United States to prohibit an abortion.

The district court decision is a victory for supporters of abortion rights, but abortion opponents have vowed to take the fight to Iowa’s appellate courts, the Des Moines Register and other media reported.

The legislation is aimed at triggering a challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark decision which established that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, activists on both sides of the issue previously told Reuters.

Iowa state Sen. Janet Petersen of Des Moines, the Democrats’ leader in the Iowa Senate, praised the ruling.

“The extreme law should have been overturned, because it restricted the freedom of Iowa women and girls to care for their bodies, and it forced motherhood on them,” she told the Register. “The governor and legislative Republicans should stop attacking women’s health care.”

Proponents of the law had expected a long court fight.

The ultimate goal, abortion opponents have told multiple media outlets, is to get the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has become more conservative under President Donald Trump.

When the Iowa law was first passed, Republican state senator Rick Bertand of Sioux City told Reuters, “We created an opportunity to take a run at Roe v. Wade – 100 percent.”

(Editing by Nick Macfie)

Health insurers, hospital operators fall as Obamacare ruled unconstitutional

FILE PHOTO: A sign on an insurance store advertises Obamacare in San Ysidro, San Diego, California, U.S., October 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake

(Reuters) – Shares of health insurers, hospitals, and healthcare companies fell in early trading on Monday, after a federal judge ruled the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, unconstitutional late last week.

The ACA, introduced by former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2010 to provide affordable healthcare to all Americans, mandates that all individuals have health insurance or pay a tax.

But on Friday, Texas District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with a coalition of 20 states that a change in tax law last year eliminating a penalty for not having health insurance invalidated the entire Obamacare law.

Centene Corp fell 7.8 percent to $117.5, while Molina Healthcare slumped 10.1 percent to $118.4. The companies are among health insurers with exposure to ACA.

WellCare Health Plans and Anthem Inc declined 4.7 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively.

“While we are disappointed in the recent Northern District of Texas court’s ACA ruling, we recognize that this is a first step in what will be a lengthy appeals process,” Molina Healthcare said.

“Regardless, the ACA will remain in effect for 2019, and we are optimistic that it will remain in effect thereafter.”

Brokerage Evercore ISI said it expected no immediate impact from the ruling, calling it only a declaratory judgment and not an injunction.

Even in case of an eventual injunction, the defendants would certainly seek and most likely get a stay pending appeal, Evercore said.

Hospitals and healthcare services providers Community Health Systems, Tenet Healthcare Corp and HCA Healthcare Inc fell between 4 percent and 8 percent.

(Reporting by Manogna Maddipatla in Bengaluru)

India aims for law that could jail Muslim men who instantly divorce wives

Television journalists report from the premises of India's Parliament in New Delhi, India, February 13, 2014.

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – India’s lower house of parliament passed a bill on Thursday aimed at prosecuting Muslim men who divorce their wives through the “triple talaq”, or instant divorce.

The bill now moves to the upper house of parliament, where it is likely to be approved.

In August, the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional a law which allows Muslim men to divorce their wives simply by uttering the word “talaq”, which means divorce in Arabic, three times.

Muslim women had petitioned the court, arguing the practice of husbands divorcing them through triple talaq not only violated their rights but left many women destitute.

“Only a law can explicitly ban triple talaq, we have to enforce legal procedures to provide for allowances and protect custody of children,” said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

The bill would make the practice a non-bailable offense with a possible three-year jail term.

Muslims are the biggest religious minority in Hindu-majority India and relations between the communities have sometimes been strained since Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party won a 2014 election.

India is one of the few countries where the practice of instant divorce has survived in law, and while some Muslim groups have said it is wrong, they believe it should be reviewed by the community itself.

Members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board said the government had no right to outlaw instant triple talaq, as it was directly interfering with Muslim personal law.

India’s civil codes are designed to protect the independence of religious communities. Unlike most Hindu civil laws, which have been codified and reformed, Muslim personal laws have largely been left untouched.

Zakia Soman, founder of a Muslim women’s group, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, said that once triple talaq became a legal offense, victims could approach the police and the legal system to initiate action against offenders.

(Reporting by Nigam Prusty, Rupam Jain; Writing by Rupam Jain; Editing by Malini Menon, Robert Birsel and Andrew Bolton)

Kenyan court says closing Dadaab refugee camp would be unconstitutional

makeshift shelters in Kenyan refugee camp

By Humphrey Malalo

NAIROBI, Feb 9 (Reuters) – A Kenyan court said on Thursday it would be unconstitutional for the government to close a sprawling refugee camp housing mostly people who have fled unrest in neighbouring Somalia.

Nairobi has vowed to shut Dadaab, once seen as the world’s largest refugee camp, because it says the complex has been used by Islamist militants from Somalia as a recruiting ground to launch a string of attacks on Kenyan soil.

But rights groups argued it would hurt Somalis fleeing violence and poverty and accused Kenya of forcibly sending people back to a war zone. The government has dismissed that allegation.

“The government’s decision specifically targeting Somali refugees is an act of group persecution, illegal, discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional,” High Court judge John Mativo said in a ruling.

At its peak, as Somalis fled conflict and famine in 2011, Dadaab’s population swelled to about 580,000, earning it a reputation at the time as the world’s largest refugee camp.

Early last year, U.N. officials said the number had fallen to 350,000, while a Kenyan official later in the year put it at 250,000.

The government originally wanted to shut down Dadaab last November, but delayed the closure after international pressure to give residents more time to find new homes.

The court’s action was welcomed by rights groups.

“The High Court sent a strong message that at least one of Kenya’s branches of government is still willing to uphold refugee rights,” said Laetitia Bader, Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch.

“After months of anxiety because of the camp closure deadline hanging over their heads, increasingly restricted asylum options and the recent US administration suspension of refugee resettlement, the court’s judgement offers Somali refugees a hope that they may still be have a choice other than returning to insecure and drought-ridden Somalia.”

The government has 30 days to appeal, Mativo said. There was no immediate comment from the interior ministry.

The government spokesman was due to hold a news conference later on Thursday to address the ruling.

Somalia’s Western-backed government is battling an Islamist insurgency as it oversees a fragile reconstruction effort after decades of conflict. Swathes of the country do not have basic services.

(Reporting by Humphrey Malalo; Editing by Clement Uwiringiyimana and Tom Heneghan)