Supreme Court Could Hear Case Challenging Abortion Rights, The First Since Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation

The Supreme Court could hear a case that challenges the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, and it would be the high court's first case challenging abortion rights since the confirmation of newly-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Justices on Friday privately reviewed a case from an Indiana appeal that's looking to enforce a state law forbidding abortions to end pregnancy by women who adduce the race or sex of the fetus, or those citing Down syndrome or other disabilities.

Justices went into the weekend with no decision, but they could soon announce whether or not they'll take the case — perhaps as early as next week, according to this report in the Los Angeles Times.

The current Indiana state law, signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, makes it illegal for women to have an abortion under "diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability." The lone exception to the law is any fetus that has a condition that would either result in "death of the child not more than three months after the child's birth."

Conservative state lawyers had been reluctant to bring cases to the Supreme Court challenging Roe v. Wade with the presence of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had a record of voting for abortion rights.

The Indiana case got brought to the Supreme Court's attention on Oct. 12, a week after the swearing-in ceremony of Kavanaugh, a notably conservative justice who could cast the swing vote to overturn the right to abortion.

Naysayers against Kavanaugh during the contentious confirmation hearings last fall feared he was brought to the Supreme Court for overturning any cases challenging Roe v. Wade.

Pence signed the law to help the state end what it called an "alarming trend of disability-selective abortions."

After a federal judge blocked the 2016 law, the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago deemed the law unconstitutional by a 3-0 vote. The judges said a decision to abort a pregnancy should be made by the woman and a doctor, not the state or any of its laws.

But Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a new Trump appointee, became part of a dissenting panel that deemed the court's ruling didn't include the state law's "eugenics statute."

"There is a difference between 'I don't want a child' and 'I want a child but only a male' or 'I want only children whose genes predict success in life,' " Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote of the court's ruling.

The Supreme Court also evaluated other appeals in privacy on Friday. They should reveal what they'll hear in the coming weeks.