In Louisiana, elected officials gave their approval Wednesday to a bill that would ban abortion, recognizing the constitutional rights of unborn children from the moment of fertilization and will perform abortion murder.

The law project was approved by seven to two by a committee of the state House of Representatives.

It will need to be voted on by the House of Representatives as a whole. The legislation will need to be approved by the Senate and the Governor to pass.

The lawmaker who introduced the bill in March, Republican Danny McCormick, said the imminent Supreme Court decision on abortion should not delay state efforts to ban access.

We Can’t Wait for the Supreme Court to Confirm the Killing of Innocent Babies a Crimehe said at a hearing on Wednesday.

In fact, the text of the bill specifies that it should apply without regard to the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and his legal descendants, past and future.

The American Civil Liberties Association of Louisiana said the bill is obviously unconstitutionalstating that it would allow authorities to file murder cases against those who had abortions or those who assisted them.

Its director, Chris Kaiser, believes the proposal would criminalize in vitro fertilization by identifying the embryo as a human. He called the bill a barbaric.

Louisiana is one of 13 states that could immediately ban abortion if Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Louisiana isn’t the only state to announce its colors after the Supreme Court draft leak.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a Republican, has announced that she will immediately call a special legislative session if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. He did not specify his expectations, but expressed his desire to save lives and make sure every unborn child has the right to live in South Dakota.

The abortion pill, the next battlefield for abortion?

South Dakota is one of 19 states that have acted in recent months to restrict access to another form of abortion, used in more than half of abortions performed in the country: the abortion pill.

Like states like Texas and Ohio, South Dakota has passed legislation requiring a physician to be physically present when the abortion pill is given to a patient.

However, this decision is in violation of new federal regulations.

Last year, the U.S. Medicines Agency removed a long -standing requirement that forced women to personally take their abortion pills. Federal regulations also allow the delivery of these pills by mail anywhere in the country.

Experts say it’s unclear whether states can override the new regulations, although the general rule is that in the event of a conflict, federal laws take precedence over state laws.

While it is technically possible to use public health reasons to restrict access to the abortion pill, law professor Laure Hermer believes this type of argument will not exacerbate because these drugs are completely safe.

However, if the Supreme Court goes ahead and repeals Roe v. Wade, all bets are offhe added.

Until then, women living in South Dakota or another state that restricts access to the abortion pill may need to cross state lines to use the procedure.

The regional organization Planned Parenthood, which operates abortion clinics in the United States, does not believe it can legally help patients in South Dakota.

We do not believe we have the freedom to ship pills from Minnesota to other places in the country where the provision of abortion drugs is illegal.said the organization’s chief medical officer, Sarah Traxler.

Observing what is happening in the country, especially in Louisiana, law professor Greer Donley, of the University of Pittsburgh, fears greater hurdles for women seeking to obtain this method.

Many anti -abortion lawmakers may realize that the only way to enforce these laws is to sue the pregnant woman herself.he says.