Form Reuters:
U.S. Supreme Court declines to block Texas abortion law
(Reuters) – A split U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to block implementation of a new abortion law in Texas that already has prompted a dozen clinics in the state to stop performing the procedure.
The provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility in case women have complications.
The court was split 5-4, with the conservative wing of the court in the majority. The four liberal justices said they would have overturned the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals October 31 ruling that allowed the law to take effect.
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by two of his conservative colleagues, wrote an opinion explaining the rationale in favor of leaving the appeals court decision intact.
Scalia criticized the four dissenters, saying that their suggested outcome would “flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional.”
Writing for the four dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have favored blocking the law to “maintain the status quo” while the lower courts handled “this difficult, sensitive and controversial legal matter.” [HUH?]
[…]
Loading ...
Chalk one up for the Lone Star State!
Now, you other states need to follow up.
Thanks for the very fast news bulletin; I didn’t see that picked up anywhere yet.
Texas, being a strong red state, is in the sights if the liberals, OFA being among the activists who are increasing their efforts to turn the state blue. It’s the grand prize, given its strong support for conservative values. There’s enormous fundraising support underway to elect “Abortion Barbie,” AKA state sen. Wendy Davis, who led a filibuster against the law, for governor. Pray for Texas, people.
Breyer’s “reasoning” is absolutely embarassing for a member of SCOTUS, and an insult to every US citizen. I am fairly confident that the court will shift to a 5-4 liberal majority before Obama’s term ends. God help us.
In other news, I had a Twitter conversation recently with a pro-abort and a woman whose mother forced her to have an abortion at 14, who regrets the abortion, hates her mother for forcing her to abort, feels guilt…but is “very happy” and doesn’t need the counseling I suggested. Her being in denial, the pro-abort totally missing the irony of what she said destroying his argument, and now, this stupidity written by Breyer, representing 4 members of the highest court in our nation…? I am just aghast at how easily our fellow citizens have allowed themselves to be fooled.
What is ironic is that one reason abortion was legalized supposedly was to put an end to back-alley and coat-hanger abortions. Now we see the abortionists’ true colors: any abortion is fine as long as they get paid for it. If they were so concerned about women’s health they would have no trouble with a bare minimum of regulation. What we also see is the truth: all abortions are ugly and grisly. So in New York City one could go almost anywhere for an abortion, and the abortionist would not be regulated, but if he wanted a super-sized soda, that would be illegal. A restaurant is required to post its sanitary rating, but an abortionist would not have to post any information at all about his “work.”
Twitter was alive with this much earlier today. God bless those judges who stood up for Truth. God bless Texas.
While it is not widely noted, yesterday, November 19 was the Feast of Our Lady of Divine Providence. An image of Our Lady of Divine Providence usually shows the Blessed Mother, seated, holding in her clasped hands the left hand of the Baby Jesus who is reclining on her lap.
It has shades of the Pieta’ of Michaelangelo, but here her Baby Son is very much alive, hence the reason for the smile. It seems a most fitting present for her Son to have given her this gift in favor of LIFE on Tuesday, November 19. Here is a site which has more information. http://patroncatholicsaints.blogspot.com/2010/08/our-lady-of-divine-providence.html
Fr. Paul Weinberger, St. William Church, Greenville, TX
Thank God for Texas! Pray that more states follow this lead!
Thank God. Now I will call my State Rep. and Senator and find out if we have anything similar and if not–perhaps we need to pass one.
Writing for the four dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have favored blocking the law to “maintain the status quo”
Wow. It’s like they are not even pretending to be judges any more.
Remember that the Fifth Circuit only stayed the decision of the District Court — it did not reverse. The District Court had enjoined the State not to enforce its new law. The Fifth Circuit essentially said that the State can continue to enforce the law while the Fifth Circuit ponders the case. Justice Breyer and the other dissenting justices are saying that the State should hold off on enforcing its law until the Fifth Circuit decides on its constitutionality.
While the dissent’s reasoning may not be the strongest, it still makes some intuitive sense. For example, suppose a State legislature decides to prohibit priests from saying Mass unless there is a fire station within 30 miles, claiming that this will protect people in case a fire starts in the church. A District Court strikes down the law as unconstitutional. The State appeals to a Circuit Court. Surely we would want the Circuit Court to wait (and maintain the status quo, that is, the state of affairs before the new law) until it decides the law is constitutional before it vacates the District Court’s decision.
That’s what the dissent is saying. Agree or disagree with their reasoning, but at least understand their argument.
Reading the decision, both the Majority and the Dissent go out of their way to clarify what they mean by stay of an injunction, because it’s all very confusing otherwise.
The Majority: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a452scalia_p86b.pdf
The Dissent: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a452breyer_3ebh.pdf
I hate with the press doesn’t include links to the original sources in their reports. Grrrrr.
So regarding the [Huh?] which any rational person would say before reading the decision regarding the stopping of an injunction to enforce a law (huh?), the status quo here the situation before a law was passed, i.e. having no new law.
Sincerely,
Rev. Paul L. Vasquez
*the status quo here = the status quo here is
I very much like Scalia’s straightforward recitation of the legal standards and the fact that the two most important were not even disputed by the Dissent. Instead, Breyer wanders around in one of the least important factors and never shows clear error in the lower court’s decisions. In other words, Scalia shows proper judicial restraint and clear respect for precedent, whereas Breyer quotes some of the exact same things (paying lip service to precedent therefore) and then ignores it. A standard that can mean whatever you want it to be is not much of a standard.
Sincerely in Christ,
Rev. Paul L. Vasquez