Thread by @ZoeTillman

Thread: SCOTUS today issued a decision on an Indiana abortion law. Two sections were at issue. The first restricts how healthcare providers dispose of fetal remains. The second prohibits abortions based "solely" on race, sex, or disability supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

The 7th Circuit vacated both parts of the law. SCOTUS:
- Reversed the 7th Circuit on the fetal remains section, so that part of the law *will* take effect
- Left the 7th Circuit decision intact (for now) on the second issue, which means that part of the law will *not* take effect

On the second part, re: prohibiting abortions based on race, sex, or disability, SCOTUS said that because only the 7th Circuit had ruled on the issue so far, the court didn't want to address it yet — the justices want to wait to see what other circuits do

Today's decision was per curiam, which means it was a majority ruling but we don't know how everyone voted — we do know from the decision that Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented and would have left the 7th Circuit decision intact

As for the fact that SCOTUS is waiting to take up the prohibition on abortion for race/sex/disability until more circuits rules — this is worth noting as litigation over six-week abortion bans in several states unfolds. If one circuit rules, SCOTUS may not take it up right away.

Re: disposal of fetal remains, SCOTUS found that Indiana's law was "rationally related" to the state's interest in the issue. This wasn't about whether the law burdened a woman's right to get an abortion, the court said, so they didn't apply the standards for those cases.

Ginsburg dissented, saying the case did implicate a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, so the standard of review should be higher. She questioned the state's motive, since it had different provisions for if a woman handled disposing of the remains vs. the provider

Justice Thomas wrote a 20-page concurrence about the part of the IN law prohibiting abortions based on race/sex/disability. He believes abortion is being used for "eugenic goals," and supports the law (keeping in mind that for now, Indiana cannot enforce this part of the law)

Thomas bounces between talking about eugenics in the context of birth control, which is not what the Indiana law is about, and abortion. He stresses the "potential" of abortion and eugenics goals, and points to a few studies about abortion rates re: sex and disability

As for race, Thomas points to data that black women have abortions at higher rates than white women, but doesn't get deep into the question of why that is, writing that "whatever the reasons," the disparity exists

In the end, Thomas agrees the court shouldn't take up the issue until more circuits weigh in. "Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope." No justices joined his concurrence, so we don't know where others stand on this