Lion of the Blogosphere

Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision

The Supreme Court has previously held that women have a right to an abortion before fetal “viability” and that the states can’t place an “undue burden” on that right.

Now we all know that the real purpose of the Louisiana law is to create so many bureaucratic requirements for abortion doctors that the practical effect is that women can’t obtain abortions.

Chief Justice Roberts has shown that he’s going to uphold stare decisis on the abortion issue, and he’s not going to let anti-abortion Republicans get away with legislative bullshit like the Louisiana law.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM

Posted in Law

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. That was kind of his thing during his entire law career. Remember the french fry decision.


    February 8, 2019 at 10:49 AM

  2. Roberts is the new Kenendy and therefore a lost cause. Thanks, W! Therefore, we really need Ginsburg to croak to assure a legitimate conservative majority.


    February 8, 2019 at 11:08 AM

    • Pro-lifer doesn’t consider an organism 85 years out of the womb to be human life?


      February 8, 2019 at 12:00 PM

      • Brendan never said he was pro-life. I’m not pro-life and can’t wait for Ginsburg to croak, either. Brendan was right about Roberts being the new Kennedy, though. I’m fine with Roberts’ decision on abortion. But I probably won’t be okay with his decisions on some other things. For example, he already burned us on the Obamacare ruling years ago.


        February 8, 2019 at 4:45 PM

      • Republicans were trying to throw out Obamacare because of a technicality about taxes. Roberts didn’t buy it. Just because Republicans hate Obamacare doesn’t mean it’s any more unconstitutional than Medicare or Medicaid.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 8, 2019 at 5:40 PM

      • The federal government does a lot of things that exceed the powers granted to it in the constitutional.


        February 8, 2019 at 9:45 PM

      • “Republicans were trying to throw out Obamacare because of a technicality about taxes.”

        By technicality, you mean the law as it was actually written.

        Mike Street Station

        February 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM

  3. But you would prefer a doctor with admitting privileges over a doctor without admitting privileges, correct?


    February 8, 2019 at 11:41 AM

    • Why does it matter? I don’t need admitting privileges to drive someone to the hospital if there’s a medical emergency. Nor does the abortion doctor. It’s unclear what purpose this serves.


      February 8, 2019 at 1:16 PM

      • So that’s a ‘no’?


        February 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM

      • Well there are some very questionable doctors in practice, and the worst of them probably don’t have admitting privileges anywhere. For example Kermit Gosnell:

        “When the team members entered the clinic, they were appalled, describing it to the Grand Jury as ‘filthy,’ ‘deplorable,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘very unsanitary, very outdated, horrendous,’ and ‘by far, the worst’ that these experienced investigators had ever encountered. There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff – long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic – and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration dates… surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary… resembling ‘a bad gas station restroom.’ Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed…[32]

        [F]etal remains [were] haphazardly stored throughout the clinic– in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers… Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent… were probably older than 24 weeks [the legal limit]… In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls. The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. The intact 19-week fetus delivered by Mrs. Mongar three months earlier was in a freezer. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered … at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable.”[32]”

        This went on for 20 years. It was finally shut down after they raided the clinic because he had been running a drug mill on the side.


        February 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM

      • There are even more questionable doctors in plastic surgery, and any other specialty as well. You don’t make abortions illegal because of one bad doctor, any more than you’d make dermatology illegal because of one bad doctor.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 9, 2019 at 2:09 PM

      • Lion, to respond to your comment:

        Maybe, but so what?; Maybe, but so what?; No, you don’t —I can completely agree with you that you don’t make an inherently immoral act illegal because one particular committer of that act manages to cause more damage than other commiters of that act; crap analogy —you really think nose jobs are of the same moral significance as abortions?


        February 9, 2019 at 3:08 PM

      • “You don’t make abortions illegal because of one bad doctor, any more than you’d make dermatology illegal because of one bad doctor.”

        No, but more strictly regulating them might be a good idea.


        February 9, 2019 at 6:43 PM

      • Medicine is the most over-regulated industry in America.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 9, 2019 at 8:48 PM

      • Cmc, yes, my answer is a no until you make an argument otherwise.

        Rosenmops, local hospitals might deny admitting privileges on the basis of poor conditions at the abortion, or because of local pressure to not provide it, or because they have a religious objection to it. And while I support the right of Catholic hospitals to refuse to participate in abortions, it’s an entirely different matter if their permission becomes required to do something outside the hospital grounds.


        February 9, 2019 at 7:23 PM

      • You don’t make abortions illegal because of one bad doctor,

        Any doctor that performs abortions is a bad doctor, by definition.

        Andrew E.

        February 9, 2019 at 9:37 PM

      • “There are even more questionable doctors in plastic surgery,”

        I hope not. Anyone running an outfit like that should be in prison.

        “Medicine is the most over-regulated industry in America.”

        I agree that medicine is over-regulated. But that doesn’t mean regulation is unnecessary. It merely highlights the need for more effective regulation rather than just more regulation. That’s the problem with regulation and bureaucracy. After a point, it tends to become less effective not more.

        But that’s not the case with abortion mills, which have hardly any regulation at all. Pro-choice fanatics have lobbied to keep them free of regulations. Including the minimal amount to which other outpatient clinics are subject.

        You make a sound argument for why abortion is necessary. Abortion may be a necessary thing but that doesn’t make it a good thing. People should look at abortion like amputating a severely injured limb. Something that may be necessary but still not a good thing. Anyone who delights in abortion has a problem.


        February 10, 2019 at 1:08 PM

      • And abortion is one of the least expensive medical procedures you can get. When you keep out regulation, prices go down.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 10, 2019 at 1:21 PM

  4. I know you love abortion, but there are bigger principles at stake here; Roe v Wade is a bogus decision like every other liberal decision using the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment to read all kinds of left-wing “rights” into the Constitution that aren’t there. We need judges who are going to reverse this trend, stare decisis be damned. If Ginsburg outlasts Trump, we get a liberal Court, and Roberts joins the liberals in ruling that illegal aliens have a constitutional right to immigrate to America, are you still going to praise him for his abortion decisions?


    February 8, 2019 at 11:56 AM

    • Good points by Hermes.


      February 8, 2019 at 4:47 PM

    • Why in the world would anyone but a white nationalist want a right wing court?


      February 8, 2019 at 6:02 PM

    • Yep. Roberts is a complete disgrace., and not even Lion’s hyperirrational hatred for middle america should cancel out the fact that Lion himself will get the rope if the Left continues to run things.

      Panther of the Blogosphere

      February 8, 2019 at 6:13 PM

  5. The Louisiana law is dumb, as is any law restricting abortion.

    But isn’t stare decisis (which some recent BIGLAW graduates of my acquaintance do not believe is relevant) a pretty thin line of defense for something so important?

    We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing medical privacy and a right to ones own body.

    Paul Rise

    February 8, 2019 at 12:42 PM

    • “The Louisiana law is dumb, as is any law restricting abortion.”

      I don’t know anything about the Louisiana law. And I understand where you’re coming from and agree… in spirit. However, abortion clinics are actually exempt from many of the regulations that other outpatient surgery clinics must meet. Don’t you think abortion clinics should have to meet the same safety requirements as other outpatient surgery clinics? Abortion proponents have so aggressively pushed the idea that there should be no restrictions that they don’t even have the standard restrictions that normal clinics have.


      February 8, 2019 at 4:59 PM

      • I do think they should be subject to more regulations. I think the pro choice crowd has done a lot to alienate people. But if you are a pro lifer you should probably feel good – I think abortion is on such thin legal reasoning that its inevitable it will be overturned as some justices decide to ignore stare decisis. And again, law school graduates at top schools are routining taught the concept is bogus with no basis in the constitution. Nothing binds a court to honor it.

        Paul Rise

        February 9, 2019 at 10:05 AM

  6. Why “recent”? Wasn’t it announced yesterday?

    You know me

    February 8, 2019 at 12:50 PM


    Not so fast. This guy gets the to heart of the matter. Roberts isn’t so much as upholding stare decisis as he telling lower courts they can’t overrule the Supreme Court, only the Supreme Court can do that.

    And since Roberts dissented to the earlier Supreme Court decision, Hellerstedt, he’ll could very well vote to reverse the decision when the Court hears the full case next year.

    Andrew E.

    February 8, 2019 at 12:58 PM

    • I actually agree with this. The Supreme Court ruled an identical law in Texas unconstitutional less than 3 years ago. The 5th circuit upheld this law in open defiance of the Supreme Court, perhaps anticipating that the Supreme Court would reverse itself now and uphold the law. Roberts may well vote to uphold this law when the case gets to the Supreme Court.


      February 8, 2019 at 2:40 PM

  8. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed= all sorts of infringements allowed on gun rights
    The right to have an abortion shall not be infringed= Stare decisis. What a joke.


    February 8, 2019 at 2:22 PM

    • That’s such a ridiculous reading. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech,” but of course time, manner and place restrictions apply.


      February 9, 2019 at 6:02 AM

  9. “he’s not going to let anti-abortion Republicans get away with legislative bullshit like the Louisiana law.”

    No, he only enables anti-freedom Democrats to get away with legislative bullshit by rewriting legislation from the bench and inventing legal precepts out of thin air.


    February 8, 2019 at 2:49 PM

  10. You’re so pro-abortion that you don’t see the big picture. NY is now allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. This, plus the SCOTUS shooting down of the Louisiana are the camel’s nose under the tent of reducing medical standards across the board – which is how they’ll provide “healthcare” to an increasingly third world America.

    Dave Pinsen

    February 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM

    • “NY is now allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. ”

      And anti-abortion scare-talking-point. What the law says: “1. A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion.”

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 8, 2019 at 8:37 PM

      • What does title eight say? Does it include non-physicians or not?

        Dave Pinsen

        February 8, 2019 at 9:26 PM

  11. If Planned Parenthood really did its job, birth control and RU 486 would be so readily available you would see an enormous decrease in the need for surgical abortion. Maybe a state could get by with just one clinic.

    Paul Rise

    February 9, 2019 at 10:08 AM

    • Birth control is available in every drug store and it’s cheap. Not the reason for surgical abortions, which are abominations.

      Dave Pinsen

      February 10, 2019 at 10:31 PM

    • Many of the gals using PP’s services are either too dumb to think ahead (or to use RU in time) or they don’t find out boyfriend wont marry them until it’s too late.


      February 11, 2019 at 1:37 AM

  12. it’s all a stage play –any nominee to scotus will vote to uphold the abortion rights and protect the rights of nonwhites and immigrants–IF it looks like these precedents might be overturned …restated: almost all elite school grads support racial preferences and abortion rights–they only PRETEND to have the same political beliefs as white proles…it’s more or less a stage play: at least one or two gop-appointed justices will switch sides whenever necessary in order to preserve abortion rights and racial preferences…

    that is why it doesn’t matter how many more scotus judges trump gets to replace–all the potential nominees will switch sides in order to protect legals precedents that grant abortion rights and racial preferences and protected classes such as nonwhites, females and immigrants…

    these judges have been doing this for decades now…why would they change?

    Saint Nasim

    February 10, 2019 at 8:43 AM

    • This is untrue, most of the members of the Federalist Society are true believers.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 10, 2019 at 12:46 PM

      • no, they SAY things that lead you to believe that…here is something you might want to consider: people say things they don’t believe when saying those things might make them money

        Saint Nasim

        February 10, 2019 at 8:07 PM

      • and what about this: most of the scotus judges since 1970 were appointed by gop presidents…and then is this objective reality: gop judges have been siding with the liberals for decades when it comes to important decisions related to abortion, race, protected classes etc…what about that little fact?

        Saint Nasim

        February 10, 2019 at 8:09 PM

    • ALL republics are like this! It’s inherently easier for a leftist to pretend being conservative than a conservative to pretend being a leftist! Elections, as opposed to random selection, are intended to consistently put the left into power and fool the right into thinking it can vote its way out of this mess.

      Freedom of religion is another scam of the same type. A Satanic cult can infiltrate the Catholic church and destroy its credibility by engaging in Satanic acts they would do anyway (child rape), but a devout Catholic cannot infiltrate a Satanic cult and reform it by being a nice Catholic. Deliberately bundling Catholicism with Satanism is like mixing wine with sewage, producing more sewage, a self-fulfilling bundling!

      It’s all “Enlightenment” sophistry. Real conservatives want monarchy, the stem family, and a state religion with real teeth, an inquisition against the cults and heresies of the world, especially the “representative democracy” psyop.

      Anonymous Fake

      February 11, 2019 at 3:07 PM

  13. I can’t get worked up for this. Stare Decisis is often little more than a holding pattern.

    Roberts understands that the Court has bigger fish to fry and will need every ounce of its legitimacy to do so. Nothing comes close in importance to doing away with the abomination that is disparate impact and filing administrative deference (Chevron) down to nothing or nearly nothing. Expanding associational rights is similarly crucial. And there is much to be done paring away commerce clause jurisprudence.

    I don’t begrudge Roberts making abortion or Obamacare secondary matters.


    February 11, 2019 at 3:20 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: