As the Chicago Tribune reported:
The Supreme Court issued its strongest defense of abortion rights in a quarter-century Monday, striking down Texas' widely replicated rules that sharply reduced abortion clinics in the nation's second-most-populous state.
By a 5-3 vote, the justices rejected the state's arguments that its 2013 law and follow-up regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
Sadly, the majority's keystone argument is abortion is safer than childbirth and, hence, medically justified restrictions placed on abortion, in this and other cases, are an "undue burden" on a woman's "right to choose," and, therefore, unconstitutional.
The problem about the assertion of abortion's safety is arguable and challengeable, with serious questions being raised about the methodology with the study. It's the same study that is blindly cited by progressives who have no respect for or understanding real science. You can evaluate those criticisms for yourself here.
You also should read Justice Thomas' dissent (the entire opinion is here) in which he documents the high court's ever-changing and sometimes contradictory reasoning when it comes to abortion. Referring to an earlier court decision supporting the purported right to an abortion (Casey), he makes this point:
Today’s opinion does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.
Hence we can expect the Supreme Court to continue making far into the future micro abortion decisions, better left to legislatures..
Here is a reaction to the decision by the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm that had filed an amicus brief in the case:
Thomas More Society attorney Jocelyn Floyd issued this statement in response to the 5-3 ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt:
“The Supreme Court today overturned a Texas law protecting women’s health because it viewed the law as ‘unnecessary.’ Texas enacted common-sense provisions to protect women at abortion facilities from substandard care, requiring abortion providers to meet the same standards as other similar medical clinics. Here in Illinois, we’ve seen all too well what disastrous consequences come from holding abortion providers to lower standards than other medical providers—contamination, dirty facilities, patient injury, and even death. We’re disappointed that the Supreme Court views vital protection against these consequences as ‘unnecessary’.”
What we have here, again, a political ideology overriding the facts.
Read why Americans need to learn about the nation's most ignored war.
Find out what freelance editorial services I can provide for you.
Want to be notified by email when I post? Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.