National Review Online
Monday, June 29, 2020
The Constitution does not prohibit Louisiana from
requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges in hospitals near where
they operate. We know this fact from reading it; from the debates over the
ratification of its provisions, none of which suggest that anyone believed that
it could be used in such a fashion; and from the fact that for many decades
states prohibited abortion altogether without anyone’s even alleging that they
were violating the Constitution. Now five justices of the Supreme Court have
conceded this obvious point.
The Court will not allow Louisiana this regulation
anyway. Chief Justice John Roberts is one of the five justices who do not
believe the law conflicts with the Constitution, rightly interpreted. He voted
in 2016 that an identical Texas law should be upheld, and his opinion in the
Louisiana case says that he still agrees with his reasoning then. Nevertheless,
he claims to believe that the Louisiana law is too similar to the law that his
colleagues in 2016 struck down over his dissent. The force of precedent, he
maintains, requires the law to be nullified. Otherwise, Americans would lack
confidence in the rule of law. It is, on the other hand, wonderfully inspiring
to that confidence for a justice to strike down a law that he concedes the
state had the constitutional authority to enact.
It is impossible to credit Roberts’s claim that respect
for precedent dictated his decision. He has been perfectly willing to overrule
precedents in the past. Some of them were of much longer standing. Janus v.
AFSCME (2018), on public-sector unions, overruled Abood v. Detroit
(1977). Some of them involved cases that presented nearly identical fact
patterns. Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) upheld a ban on partial-birth
abortion of a type that had been struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart
(2000).
The Court’s abortion precedents bear the marks of
repeated torture. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court purported to find a
right to abortion in the Constitution. Casey v. Planned Parenthood
(1992) put new limits on that right while saying it had to stay in the name of
precedent: Abortion regulations would be upheld unless they placed an “undue
burden” on the right. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the 2016
decision, purported to apply Casey while changing it: Now abortion
regulations had to pass a cost-benefit test imposed by the justices. In the
latest decision, Chief Justice Roberts pretends that Whole Woman’s Health
had not changed Casey at all. Never mind that in 2016, he joined an
opinion that explained how it had changed it. Behold the majesty of the law.
The pro-life movement has persisted all these decades, no
matter how long the odds, no matter how beleaguered the cause, no matter how insistently
it was told that the question of the human rights of unborn children had been
settled. It is secure in the conviction that all human beings have a right not
to be killed, whatever their age or size or location or condition of
dependence. It knows that what the Supreme Court has kept saying about our
nation’s fundamental law is a slander. This latest sad and unconvincing
decision should not cause pro-lifers to slacken for a moment.
One can only speculate why Chief Justice Roberts has engaged in his contortions. Perhaps he believes that this decision will somehow strengthen the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution above political strife. Instead, he has reinforced the impression, on all sides of our national debates, that he is the most politically calculating of the justices. He has diminished the belief in the impartiality of judges among those Americans who have been most reluctant to give it up. What he has accomplished for his institution is further disgrace.
No comments:
Post a Comment