Supreme Court “Gators”… Get Their Teeth Into Innocent Victims In Hellerstedt Ruling
By DEXTER DUGGAN
If the U.S. Supreme Court’s pro-abortion players had a team name, the “Gators” might seem a magnanimous description.
That would acknowledge those justices have no more moral responsibility for their attacks on the innocent than the mentally dim Florida alligator that, out of mere instinct, killed a vacationing Nebraska toddler in mid-June.
Except that our charity must be illumined by clarity. We can’t pretend that mature High Court justices with adult intellect and free will have no idea what they’re doing, even though they act that heedless way, bereft of understanding and responsibility.
It’s up to God to judge motives and deep inclinations, but we observers are fully entitled to be cautious around drunken drivers and impaired justices who steer the law and helpless innocence into a reptilian swamp.
When the High Court suddenly imposed national permissive abortion by a 7 to 2 vote on January 22, 1973, dissenting Justice Byron White, nominated to serve by President John F. Kennedy, accused his brethren of applying only “raw judicial power,” “an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review.”
In the decades since, the court has twisted and turned in its justifications for massive abortion, but has remained constant in its devotion to raw judicial power, lacking justification.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Texas case decided 5 to 3 on June 27, is the court’s latest extravaganza in self-justification of permissive abortion. Extravaganza? Savor the dictionary’s words: a work “marked by extreme freedom of style and structure and usually by elements of burlesque or parody.”
The opinion was written by left-wing Democrat Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed to the court by Bill “Slick Willy” Clinton, who recently was exposed seeking illicit favors for his sweetie Hillary from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Breyer tossed out in whole Texas’ requirements for reasonable abortion-clinic health and safety standards, and hospital admitting privileges for abortionists — even though Texas legislators clearly provided for “severability,” so that even if the court disallowed part of a law, the rest would remain standing.
In 1973 the court’s original pretense was that the U.S. Constitution laid out detailed instructions mandating national permissive abortion, including a three-trimester structure — even though no level of the American judiciary in the nation’s history previously discovered these strong, sweeping requirements.
Nearing the end of his opinion, Breyer approvingly says that in a consequential subsequent decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992, the High Court “importantly . . . discarded the trimester framework” — the sort of acknowledgment that justifies Republican Justice Clarence Thomas in his Hellerstedt dissent to comment on the court’s unacceptable selective use of, for instance, scrutiny and review, exposing a court unbound by the rule of law.
Thomas observes: “. . . the majority eviscerates important features of that (undue-burden Casey) test to return to a regime like the one that Casey repudiated.”
Later, Thomas adds: “As the court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.”
Although Breyer’s opinion even mentions unrelated aspects of contemporary life like grocery stores and train stations (but not airports?), he curiously is oblivious to the very pertinent modern evidence of “pre-viable,” as he likes to say, unborn babies alive and playing around on ultrasound.
The evidence of these scientific sonograms would serve to embarrass Breyer, so instead the zealous justice wants us to envision customers buying groceries. Get it, huh? Customers need to be accommodated, just like abortion-seekers.
Unborn babies, by the way, are perfectly viable in the place they’re supposed to be at this time in their lives, the womb.
Breyer would be no more viable were he to be cast into a hostile environment at the current time in his life, like being in space without a space station, in the summer desert without cooling and water, or under the water without a breathing system. Unborn infants, by the way, survive a lot better in a fluid environment than would the mighty Mr. Breyer.
To him, the babies are no more than little ghosts whisked away at will, not countless little bodies being ripped, torn, sliced, poisoned, ground up, or ejected.
As to the reality of the preborn, other recent news developments that Breyer ignores were the shocking, documented revelations by the Center for Medical Progress of abortionists’ mass harvesting of unborn babies’ organs, including brains, hearts, kidneys, and livers. And don’t forget feet, hands, lungs, and gonads.
These facts, too, would rip Breyer from his comfortable (dare we say womb-like?) world, so he aborts them from acknowledgment. But grocery stores and train stations? Golly, Breyer can’t ignore them!
Although he doesn’t believe the wicked work of Philadelphia baby butcher Kermit Gosnell is pertinent, Breyer nods to the Hellerstedt dissent mentioning it. However, left-winger Breyer’s response actually is appropriate to a defense of gun ownership, not legal state regulation of abortuaries.
Given Gosnell’s “terribly wrong” behavior, Breyer writes, “there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.”
That might be perfectly logical concerning a firearms terrorist determined to violate laws to carry out his attack, no matter how many law-abiding gun owners there are. But a terrorist doesn’t set up a busy slaughter office with couches and TV and take appointments to mow down his victims.
However, unless an abortionist plans to kill babies in his roving automobile, he’ll probably be working from some sort of office subjected to regulation, probably in the company of other workers. No matter how much he hopes to be a rogue, the office setting should allow for constraints — if the law and the authorities do.
Breyer is correct that Gosnell’s office simply went uninspected. This happened despite, not because of, Pennsylvania requirements — just as repeated complaints against Gosnell were ignored by authorities. Being an abortionist gave Gosnell a sort of protective covering — similar to preferential treatment that Breyer and his cohorts wish to convey to the abortion industry generally.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad to read Breyer — and his radical pro-abortion colleague Democrat Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing in concurrence — boasting in wide-eyed wonder about how absolutely safe permissive abortion is.
They might as well have said that even eating ice-cream cones is more dangerous because one might choke on the cone. Otherwise, they just about see abortion as a health-enhancing measure, the more the better.
Listen, Breyer actually says, childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in death than abortion, colonoscopy has a mortality rate 10 times higher than abortion, liposuction has a mortality rate 28 times higher.
Hey, chimes in Ginsburg, a former lawyer for the radical American Civil Liberties Union and also a court appointee of Bill Clinton, don’t forget dangerous tonsillectomies and in-office dental surgery!
Despite such assurances, Justice Thomas notes in dissent, Texas produced “evidence that abortion safety, one rationale for Texas’s law, is medically debated.”
In a June 27 news release, the pro-life American Center for Law & Justice commented: “Sadly, the majority embraced the false narrative of the pro-abortion industry — that childbirth is more dangerous to a woman than getting an abortion. The assertion is not only inaccurate, it is patently false. And it’s troubling that the majority bought into this false narrative.”
Breyer complains for the majority that requiring properly outfitted abortion clinics is just too expensive and holds down their numbers — as if everyone has a right to unlimited, cut-rate brain and cardiac surgery in every neighborhood.
Oh, but brain and heart surgery are serious matters. Breyer thinks abortion should be a Saturday morning treat.
Demonstrating how little he knows about abortion realities, Breyer complains that if customers instead have to go to “crammed-to-capacity superfacilities,” they’re “less likely to get the kind of individualized attention, serious conversation, and emotional support that doctors at less-taxed facilities may have offered.”
What a comedian, that Breyer. The Hellerstedt dissenters mock Breyer’s googly-eyed vision of comforting abortionists sitting down to offer “serious conversation.”
Abortion clinics shove through production-line work where the mother may not even see the abortionist until she’s in the stirrups, and emotional comfort can be too darn time-wasting to provide. What experienced pro-life sidewalk witness hasn’t seen a devastated-looking woman staggering away from the death house?
Breyer said a lower court found “(e)xpert testimony to the effect that complications rarely require hospital admission, much less immediate transfer to a hospital from an outpatient clinic.”
We’re probably safe to assume that Breyer keeps his nose in the propaganda sheets of the dreadfully slanted New York Times rather than keeping up with the website of the pro-life activist Operation Rescue (operationrescue.org).
Operation Rescue regularly features videos of women in medical distress being taken from abortuaries in ambulances, often hidden behind sheets or tarps to try to conceal what’s happening. Abortuaries hate being exposed by ambulances at their doors, just as the abortion industry does all it can to skew and conceal evidence of the damage they do.
Don’t want to have to confront Justices Breyer and Ginsburg with horrifying reality.
On July 4, Operation Rescue posted a news release headlined, “St. Louis Planned Parenthood Sends 60th Patient to Emergency Room, Illustrating Need for Oversight.”
Beneath a photo of a concealed patient being loaded into an ambulance on July 2, Operation Rescue reported: “Less than a week after the U.S. Supreme Court nullified certain abortion safety laws, a medical emergency at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in St. Louis, Mo., has illustrated how women have been left in jeopardy by the nation’s High Court….
“This medical emergency represented the 60th time since 2009 that ambulances have been dispatched to the St. Louis Planned Parenthood to render aid to patients that Planned Parenthood was not equipped to provide,” the news release said.
“. . . Provisions that were struck down by the Supreme Court last week included required hospital privileges for abortionists that must be maintained within 30 miles of their abortion facilities. Missouri has a similar law, and if that is eventually nullified, Missouri women will be left with few, if any, protections against substandard abortionists that cannot qualify for hospital privileges,” it said.
All Is Not Lost
As long as their words can guarantee millions of babies being slaughtered and their mothers traumatized, Breyer and his Gator colleagues are willing to sound shamefully silly in their swamplands.
All is not lost. The court has revised others of its own embarrassing opinions, sometimes completely reversing them, although perhaps taking decades to come to its senses. The 1973 invention of the national abortion “right” is 43 years old.
Breyer may sound convinced of his rightness in writing up his abortion of goodness and life. But no less than radical abortionist Bernard Nathanson, MD, who not only wrote to promote abortion but also performed them by the thousands, finally saw his errors and became a strong pro-lifer, eventually dying of cancer as he pleaded to protect babies’ lives.
