SCOTUS Lets Texas Six Week Abortion Ban Stand
In a pro-life victory, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 on Wednesday not to block the new Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while legal challenges to that law proceed in lower courts.
A narrow majority of justices held that the abortion-provider plaintiffs had failed to meet the high standard required for the Supreme Court to issue an injunction blocking a law before it goes into effect.
Signed in May by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), Senate Bill 8 effectively bans abortions in the Lone Star State the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected, which often occurs after six weeks of pregnancy. Since women do not often detect pregnancy prior to the sixth week, the law effectively bans abortions in the state. Multiple states have tried to implement similar measures only to be blocked by the courts.
The five-justice majority of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett did not issue a published opinion with their decision, so the precise reasoning of the Court remains unclear, including whether the Texas law would survive a constitutional challenge on the merits when that question is squarely before the Supreme Court.
“The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. “But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”
Roberts explained that he was dissenting because an injunction would freeze the status quo while the courts work through whether Texas’s law violates a constitutional right to abortion, narrowly leaving open the possibility that he could vote in favor of the law down the road.
The three liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan issued strongly worded dissents against the Lone Star State’s law.
Legal proceedings in the lower courts might not move forward until a citizen attempts to enforce it against an abortion provider, leaving the pro-life measure in effect indefinitely. The Supreme Court will also hear a major abortion case this term, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, and it’s possible that this case and other abortion cases will be held in abeyance until the Supreme Court renders a decision in that case.
The case is Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21A24 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
WHO Issues Guidance On Digital COVID Certificates Called ‘Conspiracy Theory’ By Media.
A newly published World Health Organization (WHO) report urges the transition to digital certification of vaccine status, presenting implementation strategies for member states.
The report is labeled as “interim guidance” which should serve countries help in their fight against COVID-19 and “to capture vaccination status to protect against other diseases”.
The central premise appears to be the implementation of Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates (DDCC) which will act as an agent to present and review vaccination status, history of SARS CoV-2 infection and test results. The report acts as a technical guidance, in regard to infrastructure, digital verification processes, and “ethical standards”.
The executive summary states:
In the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the concept of Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates (DDCC) is proposed as a mechanism by which a person’s COVID-19-related health data can be digitally documented via an electronic certificate A digital vaccination certificate that documents a person’s current vaccination status to protect against COVID-19 can then be used for continuity of care or as proof of vaccination for purposes other than health care. The resulting artefact of this approach is referred to as the Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates: Vaccination Status (DDCC:VS).
The main uses of DDCC – as reflected in the report – are:
- Continuity of care – record of vaccination – to inform individuals and health care workers when and what type of vaccine should a person receive (in the future).
- Proof of Vaccination – vaccination status for purposes not related to health care, such as University education, travel, survey participation.
The report also describes how vaccination should lead to different steps of verification and database administration, after the person receives the vaccination. The certification would transition through security verification steps until a digital certification is generated. Despite the detailed description of various verification steps, the report never signifies the reason why digital verification is needed and why nation states should follow the process to implement a whole new infrastructure. The only stated downside of paper-based verification is potential fraud.
Proof of Vaccination.
Furthermore, the report signifies scenarios where people have “to prove their COVID-19 vaccination status (such as care site, a school, or an airport).”, despite this policy being implemented in only a few places such as New York, France, and Italy.
Data sets & Structures.
The report states that bare minimum information should be included in the identification process. However, the WHO also lists mandatory, new data points that need to be linked to the vaccination status:
- Name;
- Date of Birth;
- Unique Identifier (National ID, Health ID etc.);
- Sex;
- Vaccine type;
- brand;
- manufacturer;
- market authorization holder;
- batch number;
- date of vaccination;
- Vaccination valid from;
- dose number;
- total doses;
- country of vaccination;
- administering center;
- signature of health worker;
- health worker ID;
- disease targeted (name of the disease that vaccine given to protect again);
- Due date of next dose;
- certificate issuer;
- health certificate ID;
- certificate valid from;
- certificate valid until;
- certificate schema version.
Implementation.
The certification would “help” member states either as short-term solution or long-term. In the case of short-term solution, the report suggests the usage of certification until COVID-19 is no longer considered a public health emergency.
Member states, however, can also keep the system to address other pandemics and “to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19…”
The report id funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
