Thursday, September 2, 2021

Six Observations of the SC Letting Texas' Abortion Law Stand

The U.S. Supreme Court has seen fit not to stop Texas' new abortion law which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who "aids and abets" abortion and force the aider and abettor to pay a minimum of $10,000. This would apply when a fetus is more than six weeks old. Of course, most women don't find out they are pregnant until after six weeks have passed. With this in mind, here are six observations about the Supreme Court's decision and the consequences thereof.

First, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, acknowledges the plaintiffs Whole Women's Health had "raised serious issues regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue" ad yet Alito saw fit not to address those constitutional issues and let an unconstitutional law stand. In which case, it would appear that the Supreme Court is no longer in the business of determining whether our laws are constitutional or unconstitutional. Or at least some of our laws. 

Second, Alan Dershowitz (trying to regain favor among liberals) argued during an appearance on Newsmax that the law is unconstitutional and predicted the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the law. But that by time it could be too late. Who knows how many lawsuits will be filed? Even if they are frivolous they will cost Texas abortion providers money and perhaps put them out of business and stop abortion altogether which is, of course, the aim and objective of the legislation. While Whole Women's Health, Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations will raise money they won't raise it fast enough to catch up to other red states which follow Texas' lead. 

Third, remember when conservatives championed tort reform? That's gone down the memory hole along with free trade, limited government and civility.

Fourth, many Democrats like Robert Reich are using this decision to justify expanding the Supreme Court. Of course, Congress can expand the Court although it hasn't done so in more than 150 years. While the House could pass such an initiative it would be dead on arrival in the Senate. But even if Democrats could add more seats to the Supreme Court if Republicans regain control of both Houses of Congress they will play that game too either by adding seats rendering the Supreme Court yet another legislative body or by eliminating any seats Democrats were successful in adding. 

Fifth, I do think it would be more practical for Democrats to codify Roe v. Wade via legislation though such an attempt would likely die in the Senate. 

Finally, I never thought the Supreme Court would formally overturn Roe v. Wade and they still haven't. But neither did I (nor anyone else) think they would just look the other way. All of which brings me back to my first point. If the Supreme Court isn't in the business of determining the constitutionality of our laws then what is its business? And how do they profit from it?

No comments:

Post a Comment