Supreme Court Refusing to Review Pence Abortion Law

America is supposed to be for the people. The government exists to serve the people; thus, everyday citizens should be the ones to dictate how it functions. Seems sensible, right? After all, that’s the very core of how democracy works.
Well… maybe not so much. Sometimes, it feels as if the government is dictating to the needs of the few instead of the many, and often, the country’s most vulnerable suffer as a direct result.
Abortion law is no different. No matter how the government intervenes, lives are lost as a direct result. Putting an end to the ease at which women can abuse the procedure as a form of birth control might help…
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees. In fact, they flat-out refused to even review Mike Pence’s recently presented abortion law despite it being widely supported by Republicans all over the country.
Is the Liberal voice the only one they’ll listen to?

Key Points:

  • Back in 2016, when Mike Pence was still the governor of Indiana, he enacted new guidelines on when and how abortions could be performed. That law was officially activated shortly afterward, but was then shut down by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals late last year.
  • The law in question blocked access to abortion based on a fetus’ sex, race or disability. A noble cause, of course – but it was heavily criticized on the basis that it would potentially stop mothers from accessing medical abortion for non-viable fetuses (infants who wouldn’t survive birth).
  • After it was shut down by the 7th Circuit Court, advocates pushed it through to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get fresh eyes on it. The hope was that with Kavanaugh now in place, it would finally get the right support. That didn’t happen, much to the chagrin of supporters.
  • TEST
  • Instead, the Supreme Court flat-out refused to even review it. They blocked the majority of the law, leaving only its strict guidelines on the processing of fetal remains intact. A statement released shortly afterward adds that the state has a “legitimate interest” in the disposal of fetal remains, though it isn’t clear what this means.
  • Concerns about the validity of optional abortion on the basis of disability, sex, or race are legitimate. Justice Clarence Thomas, who serves with the Supreme Court, warned the public that abortion could become “a tool of eugenic manipulation,” suggesting that the court will eventually need to face the “constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”
  • Still, even Thomas agreed with refusing the review, suggesting the Supreme Court needed more time. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose decisions almost always fall to the Left, disagreed; she took issue with the fetal remains processing guidelines.
  • Pro-life anti-abortion organization Susan B. Anthony List, in tandem with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, took it as a sign the Supreme Court is changing how they view abortions. A dual release thanks them “for affirming today that nothing in the Constitution or precedents of this Court prohibits states from requiring that the remains of human children be treated better than medical waste.”
  • TEST
  • But the pair also shared their disappointment with the refusal to block abortion based on guidelines outlined under the EEOC. They also praised Mike Pence for his efforts – even if those efforts stalled over time.

This is the third case the Supreme Court has refused to hear in relation to abortion, yet it does seem as if this particular decision was a little bit split. Could this be the start of changing attitudes in America around abortion?