ARTICLE
10 October 2024

The Supreme Court Of Georgia Temporarily Allows LIFE Act

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
On October 7, the Supreme Court of Georgia granted the State of Georgia's Emergency Petition for Supersedeas to stay the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County permanently enjoining Georgia's...
United States Georgia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Key Takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court of Georgia stayed the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County which found the LIFE Act unconstitutional.
  • The LIFE Act, except for OCGA § 16-12-141 (f), can be enforced as of 5:00 p.m. on October 7, 2024.

On October 7, the Supreme Court of Georgia granted the State of Georgia's Emergency Petition for Supersedeas to stay the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County permanently enjoining Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (LIFE) Act. The Supreme Court of Georgia's order allows enforcement of the LIFE Act, except for the requirement that the health records of the women upon whom abortions are performed be made available to the relevant district attorney.

Notably, Justice John Ellington dissented from the granting of the stay, indicating that "the State fail[ed] to show any reason for urgency that goes beyond their underlying arguments in favor of allowing the State to prevent women from deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected and before a fetus is viable." Ellington stated that "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."

The Supreme Court of Georgia and dissenting opinions can be found here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More