Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • AI Shifts Expectations for Entry Level Jobs
    • Myanmar sets late January date for final election round
    • Photos: A Venezuelan family Christmas – from the US dream to poverty | Donald Trump News
    • Browns fan tackled by James Harrison in 2005 credits ex-Steelers star for changing his life
    • Contributor: The heart of the American right is on the line
    • How celebrities are celebrating Christmas 2025
    • IEEE Spectrum’s Top Computing Stories of 2025
    • Australian man charged over post allegedly backing Bondi attack
    Prime US News
    • Home
    • World News
    • Latest News
    • US News
    • Sports
    • Politics
    • Opinions
    • More
      • Tech News
      • Trending News
      • World Economy
    Prime US News
    Home»US News»Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over Montana abortion consent law
    US News

    Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over Montana abortion consent law

    Team_Prime US NewsBy Team_Prime US NewsJuly 3, 2025No Comments1 Min Read
    Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Reddit Telegram Email
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


    The Supreme Court docket on Thursday declined to take up a dispute over a Montana legislation that might have required notarized parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion.

    State lawmakers have argued that oldsters have a constitutional proper to make selections regarding the care, custody and management of their youngsters.

    Deliberate Parenthood of Montana, in difficult the legislation, argued that minors have a constitutional proper to privateness that can’t be infringed.

    A normal view of the U.S. Supreme Court docket constructing in Washington, June 1, 2024.

    Will Dunham/Reuters

    The Montana Supreme Court docket struck down the legislation on state constitutional grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court docket now leaves that call in place.

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch stated they agreed with the Supreme Court docket’s determination to not hear the case, saying it “gives a poor car” for addressing the constitutional query concerning the rights of oldsters, which they prompt they’re open to resolving in a future case.



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleWho is Rachel Reeves’ sister? Meet Labour MP Ellie Reeves
    Next Article Vaccines save millions of lives. Don’t let RFK Jr. diminish them
    Team_Prime US News
    • Website

    Related Posts

    US News

    How celebrities are celebrating Christmas 2025

    December 25, 2025
    US News

    Boxer Jake Paul talks future plans, ‘baby fever’ after suffering jaw injury

    December 25, 2025
    US News

    Major winter storm predicted to bring snow, ice to Midwest and Northeast

    December 25, 2025
    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Most Popular

    Dolphins HC opens up about ‘exhausting’ nature of NFL rumors

    November 6, 2025

    Trump Fires Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook

    August 27, 2025

    Ending Incentives For Migrants | Armstrong Economics

    February 28, 2025
    Our Picks

    AI Shifts Expectations for Entry Level Jobs

    December 25, 2025

    Myanmar sets late January date for final election round

    December 25, 2025

    Photos: A Venezuelan family Christmas – from the US dream to poverty | Donald Trump News

    December 25, 2025
    Categories
    • Latest News
    • Opinions
    • Politics
    • Sports
    • Tech News
    • Trending News
    • US News
    • World Economy
    • World News
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms and Conditions
    • About us
    • Contact us
    Copyright © 2024 Primeusnews.com All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.