PRESS RELEASE
June 29, 2020
|
|
|
SCOTUS Affirms Abortion as a Constitutional Right
|
|
Today in a disappointing 5-4 decision in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the Supreme Court ruled against a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges; a simple protection that ensures a woman receives adequate and immediate emergency care in the event a complication arises from the abortion procedure.
Eagle Forum filed an amicus brief supporting the Louisiana law. This was the first abortion-related case to be heard by SCOTUS since the disappointing 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt where the Court struck down a Texas law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges and that abortion clinics comply with the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers. According to this decision, the Texas law created an undue burden on abortion access and hampered a woman’s ability to have an abortion and therefore violated the Constitution.
As Justice Breyer said in his majority opinion of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo:
“Those women not altogether prevented from obtaining an abortion would face other burdens. As in Whole Woman’s Health, the reduction in abortion providers caused by Act 620 would inevitably mean “longer waiting times, and increased crowding.”’
Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined in the dissent of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt but agreed with the majority opinion in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, stated: “Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law. The Louisiana law burdens women seeking pre-viability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous. For that reason, I concur in the judgment of the Court that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional.”
Further, these opinions affirm that abortion is a guaranteed right in the Constitution. Yet, this simply isn’t true. As Justice Thomas says in his dissent:
“…the idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical. See Roe, 410 U. S., at 174–175 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, a majority of the States and numerous Territories had laws on the books that limited (and in many cases nearly prohibited) abortion. See id., at 175, n. 1.7 It would no doubt shock the public at that time to learn that one of the new constitutional Amendments contained hidden within the interstices of its text a right to abortion. The fact that it took this Court over a century to find that right all but proves that it was more than hidden—it simply was not (and is not) there.”
“This is the second Supreme Court decision this session that proves that a majority of the Court is more interested in pandering to liberal interests than in ensuring women’s safety and well-being, said Eagle Forum president Colleen Holcomb. “Liberals advocate for abortion rights by claiming a desire to keep the procedure ‘safe.’ But, legal challenges to common-sense public health laws like this show the truth. It is tragic that the highest Court in the land has chosen to put women at risk in order to protect the abortion industry’s cash cow.”
In the past two weeks, the Court has made rulings that are destructive to women. Both June Medical Services LLC v. Russo and Bostock v. Clayton County will have long-term irreparable harm to women’s health and welfare. Women should be outraged over this blatant disregard for their safety. And Americans should be furious with yet another precedent codifying abortion into the Constitution.
###
|
|
|
|
