Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge In Nebraska Abortion Case

[DonViejo]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court won't reconsider a decision stopping a Nebraska anti-abortion group from fighting for an abortion law that requires health screenings for women seeking abortions.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by Nebraskan United for Life, which wanted the court to reconsider a lower court's refusal to hear its appeal.

Federal courts refused to allow Nebraska's 2010 law to go into effect and the state attorney general decided against defending the measure. The anti-abortion group, doing business as the NuLife Pregnancy Resource Center, wanted to intervene to argue for the law but was blocked by the courts.

The Supreme Court will not review that decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/supreme-court-nebraska-abortion_n_1928878.html

[barnabas63]

1. good!

[lastlib]

2. I am pleased.

WOO-HOOOOO!!

[COLGATE4]

3. Excellent! Too bad this is only

law in the Circuit where it applies, but still is a very good thing.

[TrogL]

4. It's a precedent. That's gold.

[COLGATE4]

6. No, it's only precedent in the Circuit

that has Nebraska Federal Courts in it.

[Bake]

7. YOu can still cite the case.

Persuasive but not binding precedent. I'd cite it all day long.

Bake, Esq.

[COLGATE4]

8. I agree that it can be cited in

argument. Not sure how persuasive it might be - depends on which Circuit it's argued in. But my point was simply that it's not precedent.

RKK, Esq.

[Control-Z]

5. Wow! The Supremes

are on a tear this morning. First I read they refused to hear challenges to national forest lands regulations. Now this. I'm shocked.