Georgia Supreme Court Halts Ruling Against State Abortion Ban \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Georgia Supreme Court reinstated the state’s six-week abortion ban, halting a lower court’s ruling while it considers an appeal from the state attorney general. This move came shortly after a judge declared the abortion restriction unconstitutional based on privacy rights. Reactions have been divided, with pro-life and pro-choice groups voicing strong opinions.
Georgia Abortion Ruling Quick Looks
- Georgia Supreme Court reinstated the state’s near-ban on abortions while considering an appeal.
- The ruling halts a decision from Judge Robert McBurney that struck down the six-week ban.
- McBurney cited privacy rights under Georgia’s constitution as a reason for striking down the law.
- The Supreme Court’s decision came at the request of Attorney General Chris Carr.
- Justice John J. Ellington dissented, arguing enforcement before the appeal is improper.
- Georgia Life Alliance supported the court’s decision, highlighting protection for the unborn.
- Monica Simpson of SisterSong criticized the move as siding with “anti-abortion extremists.”
- Carafem, an abortion provider, expressed disappointment at the reinstated ban.
- Georgia’s law was part of a wave of post-Roe v. Wade restrictive abortion measures.
- The ban criminalizes abortion providers, potentially leading to 10 years in prison.
- One specific provision, requiring access to health records by prosecutors, remains blocked.
- Kemp criticized Judge McBurney’s decision as undermining the “will of Georgians.”
Deep Look
The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday reinstated the state’s near-ban on abortions, halting a previous lower court ruling that had struck down the restriction. The high court’s decision keeps the restrictive law in place while it considers an appeal from the state’s attorney general, Republican Chris Carr, challenging the lower court’s judgment. The ruling came just a week after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney declared that Georgia’s near-total abortion ban violated privacy rights protected under the state constitution.
Judge McBurney ruled on September 30 that the privacy rights enshrined in Georgia’s state constitution included the right to make personal healthcare decisions, including the choice to have an abortion. His decision, based on these privacy considerations, struck down the state’s law that bans most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy—often before many women even realize they are pregnant. McBurney’s decision would have reverted Georgia to a prior law that allowed abortions until the point of fetal viability, roughly 22 to 24 weeks into pregnancy. However, the Georgia Supreme Court’s recent ruling pauses this rollback and reinstates the six-week ban for now.
The state Supreme Court’s decision to halt McBurney’s ruling came at the request of Attorney General Chris Carr, who is leading the appeal against the judge’s decision. The court’s action means that Georgia’s restrictive abortion law remains effective until a final ruling is issued by the high court. The law in question, originally signed by Republican Governor Brian Kemp in 2019, was part of a wave of restrictive abortion measures passed by Republican-controlled states in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, ending the national right to an abortion. Georgia’s legislation bans most abortions once cardiac activity can be detected, which typically occurs at around six weeks of pregnancy.
Justice John J. Ellington issued a dissenting opinion in response to the Supreme Court’s order, arguing that the state’s appeal should not be favored before it is even properly heard. He wrote, “The State should not be in the business of enforcing laws that have been determined to violate fundamental rights guaranteed to millions of individuals under the Georgia Constitution.” Ellington also emphasized that the “status quo” should reflect the law as it was before the challenged laws came into effect, effectively advocating for the protections of rights that Judge McBurney had recognized in his ruling.
The high court’s order was met with polarized reactions. Clare Bartlett, executive director of the Georgia Life Alliance, praised the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision, calling it “appropriate.” Bartlett expressed concern that without the court’s intervention, Georgia could become a destination for women from other states seeking surgical abortions. “There’s no right to privacy in the abortion process because there’s another individual involved,” Bartlett stated, referring to the fetus. She stressed that the law aims to protect “the most vulnerable and those who cannot speak for themselves.”
Conversely, reproductive rights groups were dismayed by the reinstatement of the abortion ban. Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective—one of the plaintiffs challenging the state’s law—strongly criticized the decision. “The state Supreme Court has sided with anti-abortion extremists,” Simpson said in a statement. She added, “Every minute this harmful six-week abortion ban is in place, Georgians suffer. Denying our community members the lifesaving care they deserve jeopardizes their lives, safety, and health—all for the sake of power and control over our bodies.”
Carafem, an Atlanta-based abortion provider that had been preparing to expand its services following Judge McBurney’s decision, also expressed disappointment. Melissa Grant, the chief operating officer of Carafem, said the clinic would continue to provide services within the confines of the law, despite their frustration with the ruling. “Carafem will continue to offer abortion services following the letter of the law,” Grant said. “But we remain angry and disappointed and hope that eventually people will come back to a more sensible point of view on this issue that aligns with the people who need care.”
The 2019 Georgia abortion law was part of a broader trend among Republican-led states to implement highly restrictive abortion measures following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Georgia’s legislation effectively prohibits abortions after the detection of a so-called “fetal heartbeat,” which can often occur around six weeks into pregnancy. However, the term “heartbeat” is considered controversial by many in the medical community, as the cardiac activity detected at that stage is from a group of cells beginning to form what will eventually become the heart, rather than a fully formed heartbeat.
Georgia’s abortion law also has severe implications for healthcare providers. It includes provisions that make it a criminal offense for medical professionals to perform illegal abortions, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. The law also places physicians at risk of losing their medical licenses if they perform abortions that do not comply with the state’s restrictive guidelines. However, the law does not impose criminal penalties on women who undergo the procedure.
The Supreme Court’s one-page order on Monday included an exemption for one specific part of the state’s abortion law. Without providing a detailed explanation, the court stated that the state could not enforce a subsection of the law that required healthcare records to be made available to the district attorney of the judicial circuit where the abortion occurred or where the woman resides. This exemption was welcomed by reproductive rights advocates, who viewed this provision as an undue invasion of privacy.
The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the abortion ban makes Georgia one of the many states enforcing highly restrictive abortion laws. Currently, 13 states have complete bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four, including Georgia, have bans around the sixth week of pregnancy. This new landscape of reproductive rights in the United States represents a significant shift from the pre-2022 environment, where federal protections ensured broader access to abortion.
Judge McBurney’s earlier ruling framed the issue of abortion rights in Georgia within the context of personal liberty. He argued that “liberty in Georgia includes in its meaning, in its protections, and in its bundle of rights the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it, and to reject state interference with her healthcare choices.” McBurney stated that societal intervention should be limited until a fetus reaches viability, at which point society could take responsibility for the separate life.
With the Supreme Court putting a hold on McBurney’s ruling, the near-ban remains in place, continuing to restrict abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Governor Brian Kemp, a staunch supporter of the abortion restrictions, criticized McBurney’s decision as undermining the legislative authority of the state. “The will of Georgians and their representatives has been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge,” Kemp said in a statement, suggesting that the court’s intervention in legislative matters was overstepping its bounds.
As the legal battle continues, both sides brace for further conflict. Reproductive rights advocates vow to keep challenging the six-week ban, emphasizing that it imposes an undue burden on women seeking abortion care. Meanwhile, pro-life groups are celebrating the latest development as a victory in their effort to end what they view as morally unacceptable practices.
The broader national context adds more complexity to Georgia’s unfolding abortion debate. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, the United States is now divided into regions with vastly differing access to reproductive healthcare. While some states have reinforced protections for abortion, others, like Georgia, have moved quickly to enact restrictive laws that limit or outright ban abortion access. This state-level patchwork of laws has resulted in ongoing legal battles and public protests across the country, reflecting the deep divisions among Americans over reproductive rights.
As the Georgia Supreme Court considers the appeal, the future of reproductive rights in the state remains uncertain. With millions of Georgians impacted by the decision, the high court’s ultimate ruling will have significant implications not just for those directly involved but for the political landscape of the state as well. In the meantime, organizations, activists, and individuals continue to mobilize, aware that the outcome of this battle could set an important precedent for the rest of the country.
