Add the Supreme Court’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt to the long line of horrible, unlawful, abortion rulings.
In a 5-3 decision — Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan vs. Roberts, Thomas and Alito — the Court unnecessarily struck down H.B 2, a Texas law that required abortion clinics to meet minimal building standards of other ambulatory surgery centers and also required abortionists to maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
It is ironic, though, not at all unexpected, to find Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the majority in this case to do exactly what he admitted and criticized the Court for doing with its abortion jurisprudence in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Partial Birth Abortion case. In that case, he wrote:
“It is true this longstanding maxim of statutory interpretation has, in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion. The Court at times employed an antagonistic ‘canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion, a permissible reading of a statute [was] to be avoided at all costs.’”
And so he joins in perpetrating the same ruse on the American people today. Laws regulating abortion are simply treated differently by the liberal justices at the Supreme Court. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent, the “decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.’”
Read the rest of this column as featured on The Blaze.
—
Follow Mario on Twitter @legalblurbblog
Mario’s book, “Be Spent: Winning the Fight for Freedom’s Survival,” is now avalable for purchase from CWA. Check it out!