Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. John Roberts Brings Back the Back-Alley Abortion

 

Long long ago before the earth had cooled and the dinosaurs were still roaming, the major reason given why abortion should be made legal was to end “back-alley abortions.” This term meant abortions performed in substandard conditions by medical charlatans. Now, thanks to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, once again women can enjoy having a back-alley abortion.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the Court Monday in a 5-4 ruling that struck down a Louisiana abortion safety law.

In the majority opinion for June Medical Services v. Russo, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote Louisiana’s law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals to facilitate continuity of care in the event of emergencies has “nothing to do with the State’s asserted interests in promoting women’s health and safety.”

Roberts wrote in his concurrence:

The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote regarding the issue of whether abortion providers “[can] be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients”:

Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction. As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.

Once again conservatives everywhere know that Chief Justice John Roberts is an imbecile.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Yeah, the “Safe, Legal, and Rare” crowd is now pretty much just going with Legal.

    • #1
    • June 29, 2020, at 10:49 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  2. jmelvin Member

    I hate abortion and think it should be abolished in law. It is simply murder of a child who has not yet passed through the birth canal and the act ends the innocent life of a child the same as if one were to chop the child to pieces or burn it with acid in the moments, days, or longer after the child draws its first breath on the outside. Many agree. Many also wish to see this brutal practice brought to an end. 

    Yet, with abortion, unlike with any other murder, people seek laws like this in Louisiana, which seek to make one of the murderers comfortable and likely to get away with the brutal act without physical harm. Here you have a mother who brings her own child to be murdered with the hands of accomplices, willfully holds the child in place as part of the act, and then allows the accomplices access to her own body so that they may assist in taking the life another who is otherwise safe within her body and gets no say in the matter.

    In what sort of lunatic world does it make sense to ensure that the murderer gets away free and clear? This is the world of gun control to protect the criminal. Both make no sense. The issuance of this opinion today does nothing to end this vile practice nor would an opinion in the other way requiring the murderous doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

    • #2
    • June 29, 2020, at 10:52 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. Arvo Coolidge

    Anybody actually read the opinion yet?

    • #3
    • June 29, 2020, at 10:53 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Arvo Coolidge

    If you followed the oral arguments, the court’s main beef with the standing argument was that Louisiana didn’t raise it in the lower courts. And that really was the only thing different from TX.

    But, if you followed the oral arguments, you also know that the standing argument got a lot of sympathy.

    I’m sure that the pro life legal minds are gonna work that into their next case at the district level, and the next state isn’t gonna copy a law that was struck down. 

    • #4
    • June 29, 2020, at 11:03 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  5. Arvo Coolidge

    Plus, you’ve got one of these goofy situations where the majority agreed on the outcome, but not on the reasoning. Roberts did not join the four libs. This makes it hard for subsequent cases to rely on this result.

    Haha, I guess I’m a quarter full kinda guy.

    • #5
    • June 29, 2020, at 11:08 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  6. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Plus, you’ve got one of these goofy situations where the majority agreed on the outcome, but not on the reasoning. Roberts did not join the four libs. This makes it hard for subsequent cases to rely on this result.

    Haha, I guess I’m a quarter full kinda guy.

    Arvo,

    This isn’t about legal gymnastics. It was a law that required the simplest kind of protection for those who would undergo a medical procedure. Magically, because abortion, normal protections against incompetent and improper medical procedures are thrown out the window. Roberts has manufactured a ridiculous excuse for enabling the abortion at any cost lunacy. I don’t think we should try manufacturing an excuse for him.

    He should know better. The understatement of the millennium.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #6
    • June 29, 2020, at 11:22 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  7. Arvo Coolidge

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    He should know better. The understatement of the millennium.

    Yeah, I’m one of the few who think these justices don’t just pick an outcome, then try to justify it legally.

    Makes the game a lot more interesting.

    I’m also curious whether the other conservatives agreed that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, because if Roberts basically agrees that they don’t, but they can’t use it since they didn’t bring it up before, then that path won’t be available for the abortion supporters, eventually.

    • #7
    • June 29, 2020, at 11:46 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Stad Thatcher

    Suggested fix Require all abortions to be performed in hospitals, period. Give the doctors who perform them access to the hospitals, unless the facilities object on religous grounds . . .

    • #8
    • June 29, 2020, at 11:56 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. Arvo Coolidge

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-with-roberts-providing-the-fifth-vote-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law/

    • #9
    • June 29, 2020, at 12:10 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. Casey Way Member
    Casey Way Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    So the other part I’m trying to wrap my head around (not having read the opinions, being honest) is Roberts dissented in the Texas case. The rationale for voting concurrently with the majority was the Louisiana case was so similar to the outcome Texas case that it stands. How does stare decisis allow for any precident to ever be overturned? Roberts has in writing noted it’s bad law and now claims it’s good law because the bad law has been on the books for a few years in the same structure. The liberals would never be so limited by the quaint notion of stare decisis. It gets to a point where you tire of playing by the rules…

    • #10
    • June 29, 2020, at 12:22 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  11. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Casey Way (View Comment):
    It gets to a point where you tire of playing by the rules…

    Casey,

    Trust me this doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rules. He is just offering a convenient excuse for selling out. This law doesn’t ask for anything more than the normal precautions for medical procedures. Abortion isn’t like having your nails done. Women die from botched abortions. Roberts has opened the door for a whole new generation of Gosnells.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
    • June 29, 2020, at 12:35 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. Columbo Member

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Casey Way (View Comment):
    It gets to a point where you tire of playing by the rules…

    Casey,

    Trust me this doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rules. He is just offering a convenient excuse for selling out. This law doesn’t ask for anything more than the normal precautions for medical procedures. Abortion isn’t like having your nails done. Women die from botched abortions. Roberts has opened the door for a whole new generation of Gosnells.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Babies Lives Matter. Imagine that this case was about slavery instead of abortion. Would the Chief Justice be so cavalier?

    • #12
    • June 29, 2020, at 12:54 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  13. Gene Killian Coolidge

    I have not yet read the opinion, and I know that many Ricochet members are bitterly disappointed, but one thing that interests me is that a Roberts or a Gorsuch will occasionally support the other “side” if they believe that the law compels them to do so. Can you imagine Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor lining up with a so-called conservative cause, because they felt they were constrained by the law? And yet, which side gets characterized as closed-minded and doctrinaire?

    I wouldn’t be so harsh on Roberts (or Gorsuch, in the Title VII case). They spent many hours studying the briefs and record, and listened to the oral arguments. They did what they believed was right. We’re all just in the peanut gallery. 

    • #13
    • June 29, 2020, at 1:11 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  14. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gene Killian (View Comment):

    Can you imagine Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor lining up with a so-called conservative cause, because they felt they were constrained by the law? And yet, which side gets characterized as closed-minded and doctrinaire?

    I wouldn’t be so harsh on Roberts (or Gorsuch, in the Title VII case). They spent many hours studying the briefs and record, and listened to the oral arguments. They did what they believed was right. We’re all just in the peanut gallery. 

    Gene,

    Yours was my attitude up until Roberts pulled his big switcheroo on Obamacare. He had a rock-solid constitutional argument to shoot down the mandate. At the last moment, he went with a bizarre upsidedown argument like somebody who had been paid off to throw the game. Sorry, but after that, I don’t trust Roberts. All of this looks the same to me. I don’t know why he does what he does but it stinks.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #14
    • June 29, 2020, at 1:31 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    This was a complicated and technical case. I read the opinion. I’m not going to try to describe it in detail.

    The Court was not asked to reconsider Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that established the “undue burden” test. The Chief Justice viewed the case as controlled by the prior 2016 decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which overturned a similar Texas statute and in which the Chief dissented. The present case, June Medical v. Russo (here), involved a very similar Louisiana statute.

    This is not a favorable development, but not catastrophic. The big deal would be a decision to affirm Casey. Justice Thomas stated that he would overturn Casey (and Roe), and none of the others took a position, with both the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion and Justice Alito’s dissent stating that the parties had not asked for reconsideration of Casey.

    This probably means that the Court does not have the votes to overrule Casey and Roe, though it is possible that they have the votes but are avoiding the issue because it is an election year. 

    • #15
    • June 29, 2020, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. Arvo Coolidge

    Gene Killian (View Comment):
    Can you imagine Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor lining up with a so-called conservative cause, because they felt they were constrained by the law?

    Sotomayer, kinda, declining to hear mail in voting…

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/justices-reject-effort-to-allow-mail-in-voting-for-all-in-texas/

    • #16
    • June 29, 2020, at 2:04 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    To all:

    I think John Yoo is agreeing with me about Roberts. You tell me.

    John Yoo: Supreme Court swing vote – What’s behind John Roberts’ legal gymnastics?

    Why would Roberts vote to strike down a law that he believed, only four years ago, was constitutional? His claim to stare decisis proves unconvincing. If Roberts were right, the court should never have decided Brown v. Board of Education, which declared segregation unconstitutional, since it overruled Plessy v. Ferguson. Roberts himself voted just last year to overrule precedents related to the Takings Clause and two years ago against mandatory union dues.

    Roberts has gone rogue and we refuse to see the news.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #17
    • June 29, 2020, at 2:38 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  18. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Columbo (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Casey Way (View Comment):
    It gets to a point where you tire of playing by the rules…

    Casey,

    Trust me this doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rules. He is just offering a convenient excuse for selling out. This law doesn’t ask for anything more than the normal precautions for medical procedures. Abortion isn’t like having your nails done. Women die from botched abortions. Roberts has opened the door for a whole new generation of Gosnells.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Babies Lives Matter. Imagine that this case was about slavery instead of abortion. Would the Chief Justice be so cavalier?

    Columbo,

    Please don’t use the word cavalier in connection with Roberts. I have another word in mind but it won’t get past the automatic censor. Use your imagination.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #18
    • June 29, 2020, at 2:54 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  19. JoelB Member

    I am pro-life. I want to state that up-front, but medically speaking, how much difference does it make whether the abortion provider has admitting privileges or not? Any emergency will be evaluated in the ER, right? From there care would be overseen by a hospitalist. Would an abortionist’s oversight be any better – especially the one who might have caused the problem? From the pro-abort standpoint, the admitting requirement is probably seen as a weaselly way to make it harder for abortionists to get certified. I am not opposed to putting in roadblocks, but I don’t know if this is a good way to write legislation. Maybe I’m all wet so pile on if you wish, but I think the pro-life legislation needs to be stronger in this case. I agree that it’s frustrating.

    • #19
    • June 29, 2020, at 3:35 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  20. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Anybody actually read the opinion yet?

    Yeah its 138 pages….

    Breyer wrote the opinion. Basic undue-burden arguement (“… substantial obstacle in the path of a large fraction of those women seeking an abortion…”). Before the law there were three clinics in Shreveport, one in Baton Rouge and one in New Orleans; after there would be one in Shreveport and one in Baton Rouge. Just makes it too difficult!

    Robert’s wrote his own 16-page concurring opinion.

    The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our prece-
    dents.

    Now of course, Robert’s dissented in the Texas case, but now that it has been decided the Court must let it stay that way. Uh…yessir.

    Justice Thomas writes a 20-page dissent delving into a discussion of standing (an issue in the case) and revisits the 14th Amendment issues in Roe, and sums it all up delightfully thus,

    Because we lack jurisdiction and our abortion jurisprudence finds no basis in the Constitution, I respectfully dis-
    sent.

     

    • #20
    • June 29, 2020, at 3:44 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Randy Webster Member

    Arvo (View Comment):

    Anybody actually read the opinion yet?

    I haven’t. I assume Richard Epstein did. He wasn’t amused.

    • #21
    • June 29, 2020, at 3:51 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    JoelB (View Comment):

    I am pro-life. I want to state that up-front, but medically speaking, how much difference does it make whether the abortion provider has admitting privileges or not? Any emergency will be evaluated in the ER, right? From there care would be overseen by a hospitalist. Would an abortionist’s oversight be any better – especially the one who might have caused the problem? From the pro-abort standpoint, the admitting requirement is probably seen as a weaselly way to make it harder for abortionists to get certified. I am not opposed to putting in roadblocks, but I don’t know if this is a good way to write legislation. Maybe I’m all wet so pile on if you wish, but I think the pro-life legislation needs to be stronger in this case. I agree that it’s frustrating.

    Joel,

    You aren’t all wet. Just ask yourself if this was any other serious medical procedure, would anyone in their right mind object to good oversight. Sure in any given situation may be the oversight is more than necessary. However, why only with abortion is it imperative not to have good medical oversight. Gosnell happened and there are obviously many many more Gosnell’s out there. This is a green light for every abortion factory bastard in the country to cash in. That’s a lot of dead women and dead girls. The younger and poorer they are the more protection they need. The sharks will be let loose.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #22
    • June 29, 2020, at 4:43 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  23. Ontheleftcoast Member

    Kudos to Roberts. He’s working hard to see to it that the Democrats won’t need to pack the court.

    • #23
    • June 29, 2020, at 7:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    To All,

    Perhaps Roberts has pulled his trick one time too many. Condemnation is coming from all quarters.

    Chief Justice John Roberts’s Lack of Courage Is Damaging the Supreme Court

    Decisions on abortion and separation of powers demonstrate how good ideas about the law become empty words on a page. There is a saying — perhaps as old as Aristotle — that courage is the first virtue, because it makes all the others possible.

    Perhaps it is just that simple. Roberts is a coward. When faced by the left-wing mob he caves. He is not Chief Justice material. In fact, I don’t think he should have been appointed to the Federal Judiciary at all. It’s like he’s not really a Federal Judge he just plays one on TV.

    Regards,

    Jim

     

    • #24
    • June 29, 2020, at 7:23 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  25. Arvo Coolidge

    I admit I’m naive and gullible.

    But Roberts has a point, that this law is pretty much exactly like TX.

    And if the question before the court is the same as last time, the answer should be the same.

    Someone needs to come before the court with something different 

    • #25
    • June 29, 2020, at 8:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Ontheleftcoast Member

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    To All,

    Perhaps Roberts has pulled his trick one time too many. Condemnation is coming from all quarters.

    Chief Justice John Roberts’s Lack of Courage Is Damaging the Supreme Court

    Decisions on abortion and separation of powers demonstrate how good ideas about the law become empty words on a page. There is a saying — perhaps as old as Aristotle — that courage is the first virtue, because it makes all the others possible.

    Perhaps it is just that simple. Roberts is a coward. When faced by the left-wing mob he caves. He is not Chief Justice material. In fact, I don’t think he should have been appointed to the Federal Judiciary at all. It’s like he’s not really a Federal Judge he just plays one on TV.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Harriet Miers might have been better.

    • #26
    • June 30, 2020, at 2:43 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  27. HeavyWater Coolidge

    This decision from the court means that the 2020 presidential election will be a national referendum on abortion. It’s pro-life Trump verses pro-abortion Biden. Winner take all. Or actually, winner gets to nominate someone to fill in the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsberg when she retires. And my guess is that Clarence Thomas, 70 years old, will retire soon as well.

    • #27
    • June 30, 2020, at 4:13 AM PDT
    • Like
    • This comment has been edited.
  28. Columbo Member

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    I am pro-life. I want to state that up-front, but medically speaking, how much difference does it make whether the abortion provider has admitting privileges or not? Any emergency will be evaluated in the ER, right? From there care would be overseen by a hospitalist. Would an abortionist’s oversight be any better – especially the one who might have caused the problem? From the pro-abort standpoint, the admitting requirement is probably seen as a weaselly way to make it harder for abortionists to get certified. I am not opposed to putting in roadblocks, but I don’t know if this is a good way to write legislation. Maybe I’m all wet so pile on if you wish, but I think the pro-life legislation needs to be stronger in this case. I agree that it’s frustrating.

    Joel,

    You aren’t all wet. Just ask yourself if this was any other serious medical procedure, would anyone in their right mind object to good oversight. Sure in any given situation may be the oversight is more than necessary. However, why only with abortion is it imperative not to have good medical oversight. Gosnell happened and there are obviously many many more Gosnell’s out there. This is a green light for every abortion factory bastard in the country to cash in. That’s a lot of dead women and dead girls. The younger and poorer they are the more protection they need. The sharks will be let loose.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Yes, a lot of women die from botched abortions. Mostly Black women. But their Lives don’t matter to the angry Left. Meet Cree Erwin.

    • #28
    • June 30, 2020, at 5:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Columbo Member

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    This was a complicated and technical case. I read the opinion. I’m not going to try to describe it in detail.

    The Court was not asked to reconsider Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that established the “undue burden” test. The Chief Justice viewed the case as controlled by the prior 2016 decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which overturned a similar Texas statute and in which the Chief dissented. The present case, June Medical v. Russo (here), involved a very similar Louisiana statute.

    This is not a favorable development, but not catastrophic. The big deal would be a decision to affirm Casey. Justice Thomas stated that he would overturn Casey (and Roe), and none of the others took a position, with both the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion and Justice Alito’s dissent stating that the parties had not asked for reconsideration of Casey.

    This probably means that the Court does not have the votes to overrule Casey and Roe, though it is possible that they have the votes but are avoiding the issue because it is an election year.

    Roberts seems so caught up in the politics of a decision that he ignores the law.

    • #29
    • June 30, 2020, at 5:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. HeavyWater Coolidge

    This will all be settled when Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacates the court and a newly re-elected President Trump nominates a conservative to fill the vacancy.

    • #30
    • June 30, 2020, at 5:43 AM PDT
    • Like