The U.S. Supreme Court recently halted parts of the Texas pro-life omnibus bill, HB2. And while the decision from the Court may seem disappointing and discouraging, we need not be completely disheartened.
Both sides of the abortion issue believe that the highest court of the land will ultimately hear a case to do with the Texas state law. And experts in the pro-life movement are confident.
As was mentioned in Lauren Enriquez’s piece for Live Action News, Casey Mattox, of Alliance Defending Freedom, says that they “remain confident that the entirety of Texas’s law will ultimately be upheld.”
Over 40 years ago it was a Texas law which the U.S. Supreme Court heard and as a result of their decision, made abortion legal in all 50 states. While even if the Court upholds all of HB2 abortion will not be illegal in Texas or any other state. There will though be a serious win for state rights when it comes to protecting life. This right was lost as a result of Roe v. Wade, and is a reason why even those who consider themselves pro-choice are against the Court’s overreaching decision.
As Politico pointed out:
But if the Supreme Court were to hear the Texas case, or one of the suits over similar laws in other states, it could mark the most significant Supreme Court review of abortion access since the court’s 2007 ruling on so-called partial-birth abortion. A decision could determine where state officials can legally draw the line between regulating abortion and ensuring access.
In writing for National Review Online, Denise Burke, the vice president of legal affairs for Americans United for Life, acknowledged the relevance of Gonzales v. Carhart, the 2007 case referenced by Politico. In her piece, as well as in another she co-authored with Williams Saunders for LifeNews.com, she also focused on the 1992 Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey is referred to as a “landmark case,” and one which adopted an “undue burden” test when it comes to whether abortion regulations impact abortion accessibility for women.
One very frightening, but natural consequence of this inappropriate reformulation of the Casey is that every state will be required to guarantee access to abortion within its borders, but will not be able to adequately protect women from the substandard conditions and practices in many abortion clinics or from butchers like Kermit Gosnell. The Supreme Court can deter such an outcome by re-examining and clarifying the undue burden standard.
The case was indeed a landmark one, especially because it has been considered as a reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade. If the pro-life movement can be victorious with HB2, we may not able to abolish abortion but we can be encouraged that the movement’s efforts to save unborn children and their mothers are working.