Jenna Ellis in Disrn
Amid the many legal questions arising out of the Coronavirus pandemic, the Supreme Court has been asked to take up the question of abortion access. The Fifth Circuit has correctly held that the Texas order is not a total ban. Further, the majority recognized that abortions are elective nonessential medical interventions, the personnel risk is unnecessary, and PPE equipment needed to provide abortions during the pandemic is needed elsewhere.
If the High Court decides to hear the case, it is not bound by prior precedent. Although Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) held that the government could not “unduly burden” abortion access, states are in a very different position with respect to a compelling interest and non-emergent, elective medical procedures during a national health safety emergency.
Here, Planned Parenthood argues the same false premise that it has been selling since Roe v. Wade (1973), that abortions are somehow a woman’s “right.” But even the Roe Court did not make any such finding. There is no constitutional “right” to abortion. Roe held that the government has a compelling interest in protecting life, but that its compelling interest must be balanced against a woman’s right to privacy. More
How did we survive for so long without abortion?
@extipates April 13, 2020 at 7:23 pm
> How did we survive for so long without abortion?
We used to burn them.
It’s a right to go to church services, too, but I don’t see the left getting hot and bothered about government harassing people for doing that in the current situation.
I’m going to make a guess that the Supreme Court will say that you cannot restrict abortions as “non-essential”.
The reason for this is a widespread long-standing precept in the law that is used with injunctions: “irreparable harm”. An abortion may be “elective” but if you postpone a facelift or a non-emergency hip replacement, it’s still able to be got six months later. That’s not the case with abortions.
So long as federal and state governments have been held to not be permitted to unduly burden — or in this case, effectively prevent outright — access to abortions, the “it’s elective surgery” argument is a loser. Sorry.
The court stumbled through penumbras of law to “justify” the murders of the innocents. They surpassed their authority when they “legalized” murder. As with “Dred Scott” America will have to demand that righteousness prevail over the sophomoronicisms of the court.
The blood of every murdered child stains all of us. As long as we agree to pay the butcher’s bill, we are responsible. The nihilists have ENLISTED our support by forcing us to finance murder – and we have tacitly agreed.
izlamo delenda est …