Major Win for California's Right-to-Life
The spin all over the news right now is hilarious: “Supreme Court rules against crisis pregnancy center law"; "Supports Anti-Abortion pregnancy centers”; “Blow to California’s free-choice” in favor of “faith-based pregnancy centers” which are often “not certified”.
Okay, okay… what that means is: The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that California's pregnancy resource centers do not have to post notices or talk to patients about abortion “options”. In the 5-4 decision, the conservative majority said the previous law which required such communication violates free speech rights. It also, quite obviously, goes against the very nature of pro-life pregnancy resource centers.
The Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, concluded that the earlier law violates the First Amendment because it is antithetical to these centers' mission to preserve pregnancies.
That’s actually a great thing! If you’re pro-life, I mean, “anti-abortion”.
Thank you, Trump Admin, for another step in the life direction.
That said, it's also quite true that, when Judge Neal Gorsuch was grilled by the Party of Death about Roe v Wade (during the nomination hearings), he said some things that made most of us wince. He said, for example, that Roe v. Wade is settled law of the land and that, as such, he would have to uphold it.
Like you, I don't like the sound of that!
On the other hand, Roe v Wade is, in fact, settled law of the land and had Gorsuch answered otherwise, today's decision might well have gone the other way since Gorsuch would still be with the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
So let's think about this for a moment. If Trump's Supreme Court nominees are to get past the Party of Death panels, they can hardly tee off on Roe like we do here at The Remnant. They will surely have to choose their words carefully. As Thomas More said: "What are the words of the Oath. It may be possible for me to take it." Words matter, and, again, Roe is the law of the land...for the moment.
Bottom line is this: if the Trump Supremes are going to systematically deconstruct Roe v Wade over time--which votes such as this one suggest might be the case--then I say let them say whatever they need to say about "settled law" in the here and now. It's the future of Roe that matters, and on that score Trump's Supreme Court Justices may well be exactly what Trump's Vice President has been talking about all along:
Original article on Remnant Newspaper, here.