There are times when I get up and walk off the House floor.
I go to my office and tell my secretary not to let anyone in. Or, I will go wandering around the rotunda.
But I get away from the mike on my desk and its ever-beckoning invitation to let fly and say whatever I want.
Because what I would want to say in that heated moment is not what I would want to say later, after the dust has settled and I’ve found my inner sane.
I am in a similar situation now, which is why I am not going to weigh in on the only bit of news today that has anything directly to do with me. Because I know that what I would say now is not what I would want to have said later.
Sometimes, it’s better to just keep your mouth shut.
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided not to hear a case based on an Oklahoma law concerning the prescribing of drugs used in chemical abortions. I co-authored an amicus curiae brief in favor of this law, along with my friend House Majority Leader Pam Peterson. That’s why I’ve been mum on this case up until now.
I will talk about it more. Later.
For now, here are a few facts (which I will have some thoughts about in the future) from the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court left in place Monday a decision by Oklahoma’s highest court that a major provision of that state’s new abortion law is unconstitutional because it effectively bans all medication abortions.
The high court last summer had tentively agreed to consider the issue but asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court for clarification on exactly what the law proscribes. The Oklahoma court issued an opinion last week that the law would effectively end the early-term practice of medication-induced abortions, and was thus unconstitutional.
Upon receiving the Oklahoma opinion, the Supreme Court then announced Monday that it will not schedule the case for briefing and consideration. As is customary, the justices gave no reason for deciding not to hear the case.
It is clear, however, that there are other ways for the issue to reach the Supreme Court. A number of states have passed similar restrictions on medication abortions, and the issue is working its way through the courts.