The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. You can read the full opinion below, but the bottom line is this:
Read his concurrence starting on page 46. He KNOWS that the Louisiana law is constitutional. He ADMITS that the decision is wrong on its merits.
But he places the doctrine of stare decisis -- that's Latin for "the Court's unwillingness to own up to its mistakes, lest it look bad" -- above the flesh-and-blood HUMAN BEINGS, both mothers and their babies, who will be harmed by his vote.
If I believed in hell, I'd say there's a special place in it for him.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you make it to paragraph 35, the article acknowledges the charge wasn't related to abortion bans.
>Marsh gives birth to a live premature infant daughter in a toilet, calls 911
>Emergency dispatcher repeatedly tells Marsh to take her daughter out of the toilet, she doesn't. She says "I couldn't because I couldn't even keep myself together."
>Infant still has signs of life when medical responders arrive and they try to perform life-saving measures, but she does not survive.
>Marsh is arrested for not moving her daughter from the toilet at the urging of the dispatcher which the warrant lists as "a proximate cause of her daughter's death."
>A grand jury decides there isn't probable cause to proceed with a criminal trial, and the case is dropped
This is really only related to abortion if the fact that live premature infants are human beings who merit any kind of consideration or protection...is a threat to abortion.
I mean what's the argument here? If society says we shouldn't leave live babies drowning in toilets, is that "criminalizing pregnancy outcomes"?
Sitting in on the Quitters panel at the National Pro-Life Summit. Panelists include @TheRealMayraRdz, Kara Germon, Caroline Strzesynski, and Lupita Aguilar.
Mayra is the former Planned Parenthood director from Arizona. She blew the whistle on deficiencies at the center and was let go. She subsequently won a lawsuit for wrongful termination of whistle blowers.
Kara is also a former Planned Parenthood employee from Connecticut. She's now a director of a CareNet pregnancy center.
In January, we attended the March for Life, where we spoke at the Rehumanize meetup and networked at the National Pro-Life Summit. Later that same month we endorsed the Post-Roe Future vision statement, and Kelsey spoke on a panel at St. Thomas University School of Law.
In February, Monica was published in Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics & spoke on Support After Abortion’s webinar “Meeting Clients Across Different Belief Systems.” We joined a broad coalition for #StopAbortionRX, protesting CVS and Walgreens for their plans to sell abortion drugs.
First, we don't even call for the investigation of every woman who aborts, much less every woman who miscarries. In general pro-lifers want to ban abortion, but not criminalize women seeking abortions. I touched on some reasons for that in this vid: 2/tiktok.com/@secular_pro_l…
Second, we'd know in advance these investigations would involve harassing and potentially re-traumatizing hundreds of thousands of parents at the very moment they are going through the emotional crises of losing their children through miscarriage. 3/
Pro-choice and pro-life people view abortion in cases of fetal anomaly very differently. Here are some of the major points of disagreement (speaking generally, of course there will always be exceptions). 🧵
Pro-choicers often don’t view fetuses as people or children, but as *potential* people. Pro-lifers view fetuses as people and children *right now.*
Pro-choicers generally view abortion for fetal anomaly as a kind of euthanasia and a mercy to prevent future suffering. Pro-lifers view it as choosing to kill children because they have certain disabilities.