To no one’s surprise, at least not mine, the Supreme Court voted 5-3 to strike down a set of Texas regulations intended to protect the health of women who make the “choice” to murder their unborn babies. The state of Texas used the case of Philadelphia Baby Butcher, Kermit Gosnell, as the basis for creating the law known as HB-2.
For those who may be unaware, Gosnell was tried, convicted and is serving life in prison for murdering three children that had survived the grisly procedure–although there were potentially hundreds of victims–and for the wrongful death of one of his patients.
Gosnell’s favorite method of murder was to snip the spinal cord of these helpless babies through the back of the neck with a pair of scissors–a requirement in most cases because he was illegally performing abortions past the 24 week limit under state law.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito used the Gosnell defense presented by Texas attorneys as a reason to support HB-2:
“Gosnell had not been actively supervised by state or local authorities or by his peers, and the Philadelphia grand jury that investigated the case recommended that the Commonwealth adopt a law requiring abortion clinics to comply with the same regulations as ASCs (ambulatory surgical centers). If Pennsylvania had had such a requirement in force, the Gosnell facility may have been shut down before his crimes. And if there were any similarly unsafe facilities in Texas, H. B. 2 was clearly intended to put them out of business.”
In her concurring opinion with the majority, Ruth Bader Ginsberg also referenced Gosnell, but with a slightly different twist. According to the 83-year-old justice, laws like HB-2 don’t eliminate butchers like Gosnell, they actually create them:
“When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.”
She further defended the majority decision with a claim that childbirth and other medical procedures were riskier than abortion:
“Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements.”
So, according to Ginsberg, laws that protect women’s health by driving the Kermit Gosnells out of business actually endanger women’s health by “forcing” them to use facilities that wouldn’t exist under such laws. In addition, murdering your unborn child is safer than giving birth to that child.
You can’t make this stuff up folks!
In the end, of course, this decision is based on nothing more than the politically-correct, pro-abortion obsession liberals have become know for, not on the law.
On last thought. I am repeatedly told by the pro-Trump cult that the Supreme Court is THE primary reason we need to elect The Donald. Besides the fact that there is no guarantee that Trump will nominate a strict constitutionalist–let alone the nearly certain defeat by a Democrat-controlled Senate even if he did–we need to remember that the fifth vote and author of the majority decision in this case came from Anthony Kennedy . . . a justice appointed under Ronald Reagan.
In other words, voting for Trump as a way to save the court is the ultimate exercise in futility.
Posted on The Strident Conservative
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that’s politically-incorrect and always “right.” His articles can also be found on RedState.com.
His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.