In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down June Medical Services v Russo, a Louisiana law which required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s four liberal justices. Roberts said he disagreed with the ruling but voted with the majority because of a legal doctrine of stare decisis which calls for following establish precedents.
Opponents of the law argue that admitting privileges are unnecessary and that it adds an extra layer of difficulty for abortion providers and reduces wren’s ability to pursue abortions.
In 2016, the Supreme Court overturned a nearly identical Texas law. For that decision, Roberts had ruled against the majority but overturned his prior ruling to go along with precedent. While the laws of the two states were similar, it has been argued that the situation of the states was different as Louisiana hospitals do not have the same admittance standards as Texas.
Roberts wrote: “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
I’m not a lawyer or a jurist. I understand that precedents matter. But it’s a bad precedent. States don’t have a right to decide minimum healthcare standards for doctors who perform abortions?
Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review points out: states regulate the standards for licensed professionals all the time – everything from lemonade stands to mowing grass – even when “an objective assessment might suggest that those same tasks could be performed by others.” But when it comes to the sacred ideals of abortion, the state is somehow powerless to regulate.
He says that a precedent can’t be changed without special circumstances.
We can’t overturn a bad decision from four years ago for a ruling which favors life, and safety, and state’s rights? Precedent matters but it’s not the end all be all.
Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to share and subscribe.
Racism is a terrible scourge upon humanity and a sin that is in the hearts of way too many of our fellow citizens.
Much has been said over the last few weeks on the subject of race in America.
There’s been a vocal group (who’s small relative to the size of our population) who’s called to defund police, some have called to disband police forces. And while it’s not the view of most people, these radical views are dominating the public discourse and national conversation. As have been the vocal fringe who’s justified rioting and looting and those who are calling to bring down statues.
These people are a threat to our institutions and while they do not speak for most Americans (they don’t even speak for most democrats), far too many people make excuses or ignore this behavior. It is not helpful or constructive towards building a better world. It’s destructive towards our current world and society.
I don’t support tearing down statues because I don’t believe it makes a difference in anyone’s actual life. I think there are actual things that can be done which will make life better for all people, and that’s not it. I think it’s better to be aware of our history than to ignore or rewrite it.
I don’t support the rioting and looting because I think it’s immoral but also because I think that the consequences of it are the exact opposite of what is desired. I don’t think it wakes people up, I think it turns people off. I don’t support it because it disproportionately impacts urban communities. It disproportionality impacts minority groups when businesses within their communities are damaged and destroyed. It disproportionately impacts minority business owners. It makes these urban areas less appealing to other businesses and investment. It doesn’t make life better, it makes it worse. I don’t think the rioting is righteous, it’s immoral and foolish.
I don’t support defunding the police for many of the same reasons. A narrative is being pushed that the police are going to war on minority groups. The statics don’t bear that out. Are there injustices? Yes. Are there bad cops? Yes, and those issues need to be dealt with, but I again fear that diminishing law enforcement is not the key to a utopia with less crime. It increases crime and will cause more death and again those who are most severely impacted are minority groups. It causes more crime in areas which already have high crime rates.
I see the browbeating. I see the woke people. I see the social justice warriors who paint a utopian picture of tearing down a system, undermining authority, erasing history. And they twist the narrative as if you don’t care about minorities and you’re a racist if you don’t wholesale buy their version of reality.
There are too many progressives who are willing to tolerate a lot of collateral damage to push a political agenda. I find that unacceptable. I think you can be a conservative and have black lives matter more to you than they do to many on the other side of the political spectrum. I look at the destruction of progressive polices and rhetoric and think of how many more minorities are going to die as a result of the rhetoric and policy decisions, and find myself asking if Black Lives truly Matter to those groups?
Social justice has become a quasi-religion. The social justice warriors have their public atonement rituals, they proselytize to their “gospel,” they have their affirmations (article I is that America is bad and systemically racist) they have their scriptures as I see person after person giving lists of books.
I don’t agree that progressivism and liberalism are the solution to these issues. Because they’ve largely caused these issues. We hear how racist the city governments and police forces are in our major cities. Who runs almost every major city in America? Democrats. Year after year. Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, and San Francisco haven’t had republican mayors since the 60s, Philadelphia hasn’t since the 50s, Chicago hasn’t since the 30s, Atlanta hasn’t since the 1880s.
It was democratic politicians who created redlining. It was a democratic president who engined the major crime bill of the 90s which led to stricter sentencing. And it was a democrat who pushed the Great Society and the unintended consequences of that bill have been dire for many in minority communities and led to catastrophic erosion of the family.
As I said in the beginning, tearing down history; riots and looting; and withdrawing law enforcement are not the solution. It’s the solution that progressives want but there are actual things that can be done. We should all want reforms that will make life safer for all citizens. Police unions should not be as powerful as they are. Qualified immunity needs to be scaled back. There should be a national order for officers to wear body cams.
Families should have more options with school choice, especially in areas with failing public school systems. While we’re taking power from police unions, we need to also take power away from teachers unions.
And what society needs most is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not a social gospel. Not a social justice gospel. Not a Marxist gospel. But the gospel. It is the gospel which changes hearts. It is the gospel which calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves. It’s the gospel which points to true justice. It’s the gospel which gives us reason to hope. It’s the gospel that lifts up the worth of all mankind as those created in the image of God.
Thanks for reading. I invite comments and don’t forget to share and subscribe.
Update: A British appeals court has overturned this decision. I’m pleased by that result, however this story is still a chilling reminder of the control a government can try to exercise over citizens.
A British court has ordered a British woman to have an abortion. The unnamed woman is in her 20s, but due to a mental disability, has the mental capacity of a child between the ages of six and nine.
The judge called the decision “heartbreaking” but also believes that the ruling is in the best interest of the mother.
According to reports, the woman wanted to keep the baby. Her mother, a former midwife, had said she would help her daughter raise the child. Yet the judge still ruled against her.
On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated a decision regarding a 2013 case of a Christian couple in Oregon who owned a bakery and refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The matter was taken to a state agency who fined the bakery owners $135,000. It was said that the owners illegally discriminated based on sexual orientation. An Oregon appeals court upheld the ruling. (more…)
Sarah Lockner was working at a California McDonald’s on September 4, 2017. Fellow coworkers notice a trail of blood leading to Lockner. She tried to attribute the blood to a heavy period, but a coworker went to the bathroom and found a newborn baby in the toilet. Lockner had given birth during the shift and tried to flush her own child down the toilet. (more…)
