While the pro-life movement decries the major setback of the 5-3 outcome in favor of the abortion movement in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the abortion movement celebrates.
But in her concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals a premise is that is relatively simple, but very flawed. To sum up her concurring opinion, abortion access trumps safety. Her opinion is also full of debunked pro-abortion talking points — that abortion is safe, that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion, and that because of the Texas law, women will be forced to turn to unsafe abortions. Ginsburg writes…
The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015). See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low”).
Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatorysurgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921–922. See also Brief for Social Science Researchers 9–11 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting privileges requirements found abortion “is at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpatient settings”).
Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 910. When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17–22. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.
While Ginsburg cites her debunked claims, she does so by using biased sources. After all, the ACLU and ACOG are decidedly pro-abortion.
Abortion advocates on social media celebrated the decision with #NotoriousRBG on Facebook and Twitter. Several media outlets also hailed Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion:
- The Huffington Post: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Smacks Down Future Abortion Restrictions In A Single Paragraph”
- U.S. News & World Report: “#NotoriousRBG Is Trending–Again–Thanks to Her Smackdown of HB2”
- Washington Post: “Ginsburg smacks down a major abortion myth after historic SCOTUS ruling”
- Slate: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Slams Texas’ Anti-Abortion Arguments: “Beyond Rational Belief””
- Vox: “Supreme Court abortion decision: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s must-read quote”
- Mashable: “Notorious RBG basically tells Texas abortion law to GTFO”
Pro-abortion views from the mainstream media are nothing new, especially when it comes to many of the above-mentioned sites. The celebration is still no less troublesome.
Ginsburg’s ignorance is particularly dangerous for women. Her position of power and influence by being on the bench for the highest court in the land not only means accolades from the mainstream media and other pro-abortion forces who pretend that the abortion industry can do no wrong, but means that our country’s abortion laws are deeply affected.
Breyer made similar points in his majority opinion. In her analysis for National Review, Carrie Severino highlights this passage:
Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.
