What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The wrong strike-down of Roe v. Wade

Wesley J. Smith has been warning for years about the very real possibility that Roe v. Wade will be struck down in a different sense from the sense pro-lifers talk about. What he means is that Roe, radical and evil though it was, left in place the possibility of some regulations on abortion facilities and the conditions under which abortion is carried out. Pro-aborts have chafed at these for years and have attempted repeatedly to get the abortion license of Roe expanded so that it is not even regulated as a surgical procedure would otherwise be when carried out in a free-standing clinic.

In the wake of Antonin Scalia's death, that looks like a very real possibility. Texas has been all too successful in regulating abortion. "Too many" abortion clinics are closing in Texas, and the pro-aborts are directly using that as an argument, per the Casey decision, that the medical regulations on abortion facilities are posing an "undue burden on women seeking an abortion."

Here are the requirements:

The bill, called H.B. 2, mandates that any physician performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion was performed. In addition, all abortion clinics in the state are required to meet the regular Texas standards for ambulatory surgical centers.

This hardly seems unreasonable even aside from the grave evil of abortion. And of course if it is causing abortion clinics to close, all the better. Though in the strange, looking-glass world of Supreme Court arguments, the state is evidently arguing that there is no evidence that these regulations actually are the cause of the clinic closings in Texas. I do not know whether that is true or not. I do know that it is part of the twistedness of the post-Roe world that the question should even arise.

The Stream reports that it looks entirely plausible that SCOTUS will strike down the law by a 4-3 vote, with Anthony Kennedy siding with the pro-aborts. If the vote were 4-4, the case would probably be re-heard after a replacement for Scalia has been put on the bench.

I urge Christian readers to pray about this crucial case.

Comments (6)

Can't let our guard down for a second. Thank you, Lydia, for keeping these issues in front of us.

If the vote were 4-4, the case would probably be re-heard after a replacement for Scalia has been put on the bench.

I thought the precedent was that a tie vote meant that the lower court ruling stands. Does that not apply to the Supremes? What happens when one judge recuses himself? Or gets ill and cannot participate? An empty seat isn't the only time you can get a tie vote.

The Stream article indicates that that would allow the law to stand if there were a tie, but that in the present circumstances the SCOTUS might re-hear it anyway. "In the event of a tie, the court will probably decide to hear the case again once a replacement for Justice Scalia is appointed."

I don't know where they are getting that information from.

If I were Abbott, I would just threaten the pro-aborts directly. If you get these regulations struck down, we'll put abortion outside of all state regulations. You'll get more abortion. You'll also not be allowed to sue when your provider turns up drunk and leaves you sterile because he candle operate properly.

What makes this possibility so serious is that it would represent the final point wherein complete capitulation or open defiance are the only choices. At the national level, there's no way we'd get the consensus to impeach the majority of the Supreme Court. I don't think the Republicans could bring themselves to do that even if the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right to murder a stranger and eat their corpse. So it would be up to the states to not only pass their own laws, but begin taking measures to forcefully block federal intervention.

On the plus side, I think it would drive a lot of moderates into the edge of the pro-life camp because the pro-choice side would be seen as capital C crazy.

You, Madam, are a Joan of Arc for our time. Thank you for your labors.

A fellow Anglo-Catholic from the Continuum.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.