The majority of justices in the Texas case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, argued that this law placed an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion, as defined by a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in the recent Texas case pointing out the court’s tendency to bend over backwards to accommodate abortion. Some highlights:
- “The majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.”
- “By second guessing medical evidence and making its own assessments of ‘quality of care’ issues . . . the majority reappoints this Court as the country’s ex officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.”
- “The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution.”
- “The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is . . . an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.”
The so called “right to abortion” now trumps the safety of women. Well said Justice Thomas.