Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh Betray Pro-Lifers. As Expected

Come on. Who didn't see this coming?

After all the push and fighting pro-lifers did to make sure Robert Kavanaugh took a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, how could we not have expected to be betrayed as soon as possible? Roberts is Roberts. I mean, that ship has sailed. He's on the organ donor waiting list for the first spine transplant.

The Supreme Court Monday rebuffed efforts by states to block funding to Planned Parenthood.

It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.
It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- voted to hear the case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court's liberals in not taking up the case -- showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.

Roberts and Kavanaugh "likely have serious objections," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible."
Even CNN can't come up with some constitutionalist argument to support their pro-abort brethren. All they've got is that Roberts and Kavanaugh want to avoid "contentious, high profile disputes." Uhm, what did they think the Supreme Court did? Its actual role is to settle disputes of the contentious variety.

Justice Clarence Thomas pretty much called them wusses in his dissent. "What explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" Thomas wrote.
"I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named Planned Parenthood."

I wrote a book called "Faith Under Fire: Dramatic Stories of Christian Courage." Let's just say these two wouldn't qualify.

So, it turns out that Planned Parenthood has a right to taxpayer money. At least until we see how that spine transplant turns out.


  1. That's not a merits decision. It's a denial of a writ of certiorari. It just means the Court declined to hear the case. It's not precedential. The justices decide not to hear cases for a *wide* variety of reasons, including the reason that the case might frame an issue the justice cares about in a way that would make it more difficult to reach what the justice thinks would be the preferable outcome.

    Thomas might be right that Roberts is avoiding a politically contentious litigant, but that case had basically nothing to do with abortion, and a vote to deny certiorari does not tell you how a justice would vote on the case's merits. The reaction here on everyone's part is overwrought.

    1. Isn't protecting Planned Parenthood's abortion business really included under "providing preventive care for low income women"? The decision will influence how other cases are heard and decided, even if it is not binding as a precedent. A decision to do nothing about a grave injustice, the killing of innocent children, is the moral equivalent of deciding to permit the injustice.

    2. "It's not precedential." No, it only let the lower court set the precedent.

  2. Not every "bad" decision by a judge comes about because he is evil. If a federal law is evil, an Originalist judge will still apply the law. If Congress appropriated money for PP, an Originalist judge will uphold the law.

    People talk about "pro-life" judges. But it is not the function of a judge to make "pro-life" rulings. It is the function of a judge to apply existing law to cases.

    I'm not saying this decision was right. I am disposed to trust Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.

    1. Perhaps the bigger issue is the possibility that, if he voted to hear the case, it might not turn out as the pro-life people would want. I'm willing to wait.

    2. Congress didn't appropriated money for PP. Congress gave some money to the states for women's health services. The States are actually paying it at the Fed's direction and the States want to cut ALL of the money to PP but not other women's health services. The lower court ruled that they couldn't cut the money. So now that PP has that decision, they could increase their bills to the States knowing that they can't be refused. Of course by the Federal law abortions can't be funded, but the money all goes into one PP pocket.

    3. "It is the function of a judge to apply existing law to cases." I guess you would let the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision stand since that was based on precedent.

  3. Titus and Fr. VF have it right, I'd say, apparently citing rule-of-law issues. The two judges' seem defensible to me.


Post a Comment