July 12, 2019

Positivity: Justice Thomas: “Nothing in the Constitution Prohibits Passing Laws Prohibiting Dismemberment of a Living Child”

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 5:55 am

From Washington, via Life News:

JUN 28 2019, 3:35PM

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued another powerful opinion Friday (June 28) after the high court rejected a case about protecting unborn babies from brutal dismemberment abortions.

Thomas said the Supreme Court precedent on abortion has “spiraled out of control” to the point where even laws that ban dismemberment abortions and sex-selection abortions are being struck down, according The Blaze.

He wrote the opinion in response to the justices’ decision not to hear an Alabama case about banning dismemberment abortions. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the law in 2018, citing Supreme Court precedent, and, on Friday, the high court refused to hear an appeal of that decision, according to Politico.

The Alabama law bans brutal dismemberment abortions that tear nearly fully formed babies limb from limb while their hearts are still beating. Alabama lawmakers enacted the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act in 2016, but two abortion businesses and the ACLU sued to stop it.

“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” Thomas wrote. “But under the ‘undue burden’ standard adopted by this Court, a restriction on abortion —even one limited to prohibiting gruesome methods — is unconstitutional if ‘the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision is to ‘place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.’”

Here’s more:

… Thomas explained that while the “case does not present the opportunity to address” what he called the “demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard,” that he and his colleagues “cannot continue blinking the reality of what this Court has wrought,” referring to past abortion rulings.

Thomas’ ruling explained that the operating precedent for the court’s decision to let the case stand was the “undue burden” standard set by the court in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

He suggested that it is time for the high court to reconsider that precedent.

Go here for the rest of the story.

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.