An “Undue” Decision

There were no winners following the decision of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt, only losers of different proportions. The pro-life movement lost the decision. Women who will undergo abortions lost life saving safety standards. And the Supreme Court lost much of its credibility as a neutral arbiter.
Long ago, in a place seemingly far, far away abortion activists advocated for a policy based on “safe, legal, and rare” access. Today, the battle cry of the Left is one of “free and on demand.” Politicians pander to the extremes of the pro-abortion groups while a growing majority of people in this country are actually pro-life or moderate on the issue. These days it seems that the political pandering doesn’t stop before the steps of the Supreme Court but has infected the justices themselves.

Opinions too often these days are reeking with personal agendas rather than representing consistent Constitutional interpretation.
The justices of the dissent rightfully did not hold back in revealing the clear progressive agenda of the majority of the court. Clarence Thomas scathingly critiqued how the court, by habitually applying different sets of rules to the judgement of our Constitutional rights, has undermined its credibility; “our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predict- ability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.”

Justice Alito reveals that the petitioners of this case were not even seeking judgement from the high court. After losing the decision in the Federal Appeals Court they sought no further action, yet the court granted it to them. Alito explained the pure hypocrisy of this action as “the Court does this even though petitioners, undoubtedly realizing that a rematch would not be allowed, did not presume to include such a claim in their complaint (to the Appeals court). The Court favors petitioners with a victory that they did not have the audacity to seek.” On top of this already peculiar case, the justices of the majority refused to strike the deemed “unconstitutional” parts of the Texas law, as is custom. Alito points out that “the Court holds that no part of the challenged provisions and no application of any part of them can be saved,” even requirements “to follow basic fire safety measures—are stricken from the books. There is no possi­ble justification for this collateral damage.” Alito, too, was dismayed at the clear destruction of judicial credibility by this case, “the Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.”
It is a sad day when regulations aiming to make the abortion procedure safer are struck down as an “undue burden.” This case truly raises the question as to whether any health standard can effectively be applied to this procedure. However, there is hope; for justice is immune to political agendas and the pandering of parties. Although some humans, even at the highest levels of our government, dare to corrupt the vision of our Constitution, the law still stands above man. Through the ages of our nation, ideologies have come and gone, but the supreme law of this country stands etched in stone and with that, the pro-life movement forever shall remain hopeful that true justice will be fulfilled.

-Hunter Estes

Vita Saxa Events Director

Georgetown ’19


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s