Abortion rights groups immediately hailed the high court action in an Ohio case as a victory and warned that it should discourage states from trying to restrict a woman's right to end a pregnancy. But the court's order yesterday sets no national precedent and its failure to clarify standards for abortion regulation likely means that the politicking in the nation's statehouses and in Congress will not ebb.
By declining to take the case, the high court ensured that Ohio cannot enforce its 1995 ban on almost all late-term abortions and on a procedure sometimes considered a "partial-birth" abortion. The justices' action leaves in place a lower court ruling that struck down the ban as unconstitutional. With more than 20 states already outlawing "partial-birth" abortions and Congress continuing to push its proposed ban - twice vetoed by President Clinton - legislators around the country had hoped the high court would provide some direction as to whether such bans are permissible.
One ruling could allow the Scouts to expel twin brothers. They were barred by a Cub Scout den because they refused to profess a belief in God, were admitted by court order and recently qualified to become Eagle Scouts. A second ruling upheld the Scouts' rejection of an Eagle Scout's application to become a Scout leader after he disclosed his homosexuality in a newspaper interview.
The opinion by Chief Justice Ronald George stressed that court was not judging the wisdom of the Scouts' policies, and carefully avoided the question of whether the Scouts, if covered by civil rights laws, would have
the constitutional right to exclude gays and atheists.
"This is the sort of victory that the Boy Scouts should be ashamed of," said Timothy Curran, whose application to be an assistant scoutmaster in Contra Costa County in 1981 was the subject of one ruling.
WASHINGTON - The first scientific look at welfare time limits, a controversial new policy that cuts off benefits for people after a set number of years, found that most recipients in the study were working six months after they lost their assistance. But the study released yesterday also found that the policy did not prompt families to leave the rolls any sooner than if they weren't facing a time limit.
The federal law established a five-year limit on benefits, but it allowed states to set shorter limits.
03-24-98
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |