The infanticidal system established in Roe V. Wade and Doe.v. Bolton, bolstered by an array of idiotic and results-oriented decisions, is now on the brink of being repudiated by the Supreme Court for the first time.
The Supreme Court is currently faced with two important abortion cases. A Mississippi case is the one that will be heard by the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, All intents and purposes, abortion is prohibited after the fifteenth week. Although the law is still in litigation, six of its justices voted to allow it to take effect at oral arguments. The original Roe Trimester rubric makes this a simple matter. It recognizes the state’s compelling interest in the health and welfare of the baby after the first trimester. But, thanks to the dog’s breakfast of lousy law created by pro-abort justices…looking at you Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor…abortion has become some sort of Molochian sacrament where a baby can literally be killed after passing through the birth canal if the “mother” has buyer’s remorse (see Nothing Ralph Northam Or His Media Friends Say Can Cover Up His Monstrous Pro-Infanticide Stance).
We can learn more about the state-of-play in the abortion issue by looking at the second case. This is the Texas “heartbeat” bill titled Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. Texas’ law prohibits abortion after a detectable heartbeat is detected. To protect the bill against preemptive legal challenges it establishes a private right of action that allows anyone to sue any person involved in an abortion. By anyone, I mean the clinic receptionist, the cleaning crew, the Uber driver who took the woman to the clinic, the abortionist, the clinic accountant. Literally everyone. You can also file lawsuits in Texas counties by anyone who wants to join the fun. Abortion is now not available in Texas due to the threat of personal bankruptcy. You can read my coverage of that case’s appearance in the Supreme Court at Supreme Court Humiliates Biden, Refuses to Stop Texas Heartbeat Law, and Gorsuch and the Wise Latina Have a Public Spat.
The Texas Heartbeat Bill’s path is of particular importance. After its hearing, the Supreme Court was presented with two choices. The Supreme Court could either send it back to the Fifth Circuit panel that had previously handled the case or return it to its district counterpart. The district judge, if not a virulent pro-abort, gives a passable imitation of one when he’s up and has his trousers on. It is almost certain that the Texas law will be invalidated if this case goes back to district court. The Fifth Circuit was sent the case by the Supreme Court. Abortionists challenged the decision to send it back to the district courts. To determine which Texas Supreme Court officers can be sued for stopping enforcement of the bill, the Fifth Circuit sent the case to them. Here it is.
In other words, both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court had two chances to refer the Texas law before a court. Both of them passed. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern humorously describes the event.
In October, justices accepted arguments, but gave S.B. 8 to stay in place indefinitely. Sotomayor dissented from their refusal to halt the law, describing its effects as “catastrophic” and “ruinous.”
In November, by a 5–4 vote, the justices ruled that the providers could not sue state court clerks. The decision is called Whole Woman’s Health II.) But by an 8–1 vote, the court held that providers Could sue “executive licensing officials” who help enforce the law against clinics. Sotomayor noted that the court “should have put an end to this madness months ago.” But she wrote approvingly that Whole Woman’s Health II would finally allow the district court to provide “relief” for the clinics, a view that Roberts endorsed.
There was no relief. The Supreme Court sent back the case to the 5Th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative circuit court in the country. It landed on a three-judge panel made up of Edith Jones, a far-right Ronald Reagan nominee; Kyle Duncan, a notoriously cruel Donald Trump nominee; and Stephen Higginson, a moderate Barack Obama nominee. Texas promptly asked the panel to certify the case to the Texas Supreme Court so it could decide whether SCOTUS was correct to hold that “executive licensing officials” could be sued. Jones and Duncan steered the panel through a number of delays. Panel members scheduled utterly gratuitous oral arguments to run down the clock (over Higginson’s dissent), then certified the case to Texas’ high court (over Higginson’s dissent). At arguments, Jones suggested that her court should sit on the case until June—at which point, she explained, SCOTUS might overturn Roe V. Wade. Jones made the sly assertion that S.B. 8 case was “not about abortion.”
Waiting for a Texas Supreme Court decision could be arduous and may cause clinics to remain closed. So providers asked SCOTUS to issue a writ of mandamus that would send the case back to the district court, which could issue an injunction blocking at least part of S.B. 8. The court refused on Thursday afternoon, apparently by a 6–3 vote, with the three liberals dissenting.
This does not imply that the Supreme Court is rushing to stop the fighting until they render its judgment. The contrary is true. It seems that the Supreme Court decided to stop Texas’s abortion industry, even though it doesn’t appear to be doing so.
Stern focuses on Sotomayor’s vitriolic dissent as a hint of what will happen.
I disapproved in Whole Woman’s Health II because the Court’s dismissal of the most important portions of the petitioners’ claims, beyond being unfaithful to our precedents, left all manner of constitutional rights vulnerable to nullification. I explained that the Court had “clear[ed] the way for States to reprise and perfect Texas’ scheme in the future” in order to target this and other rights with impunity.
Today’s decision shows that any hope that Whole Woman’s Health II might protect the Constitution’s guarantees in this case was illusory. Texas was not required to alter its law to get the very limited relief that this court provided. Texas argued that the court didn’t mean anything it stated. Whole Woman’s Health II or, at least, that this Court would not stand behind those words, meager as they were. This bet paid off. Despite this Court’s protestations over the “extraordinary solicitude” it gave this case and the narrowness of any dispute, it accepts yet another dilatory tactic by Texas. The District Court is therefore unable to deal with S.B. 8’s unconstitutional chill on abortion care, likely for months to come.
This case is both a catastrophe for the rule-of-law and a serious disservice to Texas’ women, who have the right to manage their bodies. This constitutional guarantee is being ignored by the state. I refuse to stand by. I dissent.
He reasons, correctly, I think, that the preliminary vote on the Texas law and the Mississippi law have already been made in Justice’s conferences, and Sotomayor knows the outcome. Because she is certain she will lose nothing, she kind of breaks down. Roe and its pseudo-Constitutional underpinning are gone; there are not five votes on the bench to preserve it. She is the unapologetic, outspoken and boldest of her choices. Moloch priestessPro-abort icon at the bench Were that not the case, and the Justices were still debating either case, she’d be much more collegial and circumspect.
She instead is going into a mode of “burn it all down”, unleashing her fury on the justices, who aim to extinguish fundamental freedoms, without being weighed down by fear of losing a victory.
For far too many years, abortion has poisoned the political system. It’s time for it to be recognized as the criminal and horrible undertaking it is. The Supreme Court’s actions in these cases show that the majority of Justices believe that abortion is wrong and that it is unacceptable to have to deal with abortion as a Federal Constitutional matter. This is detrimental to their credibility. To be free is to go back to 1973, and do the right thing.
About Post Author
