Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • As Congress Slashes Funding to NPR and PBS, the Real Losers May Be Far Downstream, Say Experts
    • Trump insists Iran nuclear sites destroyed amid reports some survived
    • Could Trump’s threats against Brazil backfire? | TV News
    • Saints QB competition impacted by rookie contract development
    • Trump calls those who want Epstein files released ‘troublemakers’
    • Why So Many States Want to Ban China From Owning Farmland
    • With No Clear Front-Runner, Democrats Begin Testing 2028 Presidential Waters
    • US says attack on West Bank Palestinian church was ‘act of terror’
    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

    Trump calls those who want Epstein files released ‘troublemakers’

    July 19, 2025
    US News

    At least 30 injured after car plows into crowd outside music venue in Los Angeles

    July 19, 2025
    US News

    Man dies after metallic chain pulls him into MRI machine in New York

    July 19, 2025
    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Most Popular

    Israeli airstrike kills Hamas political leader in southern Gaza, Hamas says

    March 23, 2025

    Trump Drops F-Bomb On Israel, Iran

    June 24, 2025

    Something Else for Europe and the U.S. to Disagree About: ‘Free Speech’

    April 5, 2025
    Our Picks

    As Congress Slashes Funding to NPR and PBS, the Real Losers May Be Far Downstream, Say Experts

    July 19, 2025

    Trump insists Iran nuclear sites destroyed amid reports some survived

    July 19, 2025

    Could Trump’s threats against Brazil backfire? | TV News

    July 19, 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.