This morning the SCOTUS handed down its ruling on Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This case came from Texas (of course it did) and had to do with Texas saying that abortion clinics needed to have admitting privileges. They obviously don’t as having an abortion is one of the safest procedures out there.
The irony is that while Texas said this was about protecting women’s health, it was actually about infringing it. It’s kind of like if they wanted to pass the anti-bullying act, and it was a piece of legislature that gave each and every bully a lead pipe and let them carry it around school after their first bullying offense.
Anyway, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion which was gosh darned beautiful and should be read in full. Sadly, that would make this post unbearably long, so in summation:
We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access… and each violates the Federal Constitution.
We have found nothing in Texas’ record evidence that shows that, compared to prior law (which required a “working arrangement” with a doctor with admitting privileges), the new law advanced Texas’ legitimate interest in protecting women’s health.
We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.
In an ideal world, if you showed up before the Supreme Court without evidence you should at least have to spend a day eating at McDonald’s as punishment or something.
Justice Thomas in his dissent asserted that the court made the wrong decision because nobody has a right to an abortion:
This suit is possible only because the Court has allowed abortion clinics and physicians to invoke a putative constitutional right that does not belong to them — a woman’s right to abortion.
lol, ok slugger.
Even Justice Ginsburg wrote in her concurring opinion that it was obvious that this law was not about protecting women, just about making it harder for them to get abortions. We knew that already, of course. Pro-choice people new that. Anti-abortion people knew that. And even the three dissenting justices probably knew that. The premise for this bill was a lie because the truth would’ve resulted in certain defeat and, rather than lose honestly, swaths of people who swear up and down you can’t be moral without Jesus threw their full support behind the tactic of trying to win with lies.
Thankfully, they still lost. Ordinarily this would result in all the usual sadness of losing along with the additional cost of realizing you sold out your honesty and came out of it not only losers, but shittier people. But despite all their Jesus-infused morality, I doubt one of them will lament their shady tactics or having traded in their virtue for no return. They will only care that they lost, not that they fought dirty — and just as much, they’ll bemoan that those immoral heathens on the other side (honest, though they are) won. Women get better healthcare? If that’s the price of Jesus losing, the lot of them would throw 50% of the population under the bus tomorrow.
That Jesus morality, though.
Oh, and hey Bernie or Bust people…see how nice it is winning Supreme Court cases?