The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday night, 5-4, to not intervene in stopping Texas' new anti-abortion law — potentially clearing the way for the end of Roe V. Wade in setting precedent on abortion in the U.S.
The new Texas law, also known as the fetal heartbeat law, effectively bans abortions once a heartbeat is detected — estimated to be about six weeks. It makes no exceptions for rape and incentivizes anti-abortion groups to sue people they suspect of having an abortion or providing abortion services.
|
Twitter
See @mjs_DC's post on Twitter.
twitter.com/mjs_DC
|
 |
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court in voting to block Texas implementing the new law. The decision, however, was a major victory for anti-abortion groups that have been working to turn back Roe V. Wade since 1973.
|
Twitter
See @LifeNewsHQ's post on Twitter.
twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ
|
|
|
Twitter
See @LifeNewsHQ's post on Twitter.
twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ
|
|
The fury on the left tore up social media on Wednesday night. The decision came just after midnight eastern standard time. There were calls for President Joe Biden to pack the Supreme Court — undoing the conservative majority.
https://twitter.com/Klonick/status/1433095595808464906?s=20
|
Twitter
See @harrylitman's post on Twitter.
twitter.com/harrylitman
|
|
In his dissent, Roberts wrote that Texas' law is unusual because of its civil enforcement measures.
"The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented," Roberts wrote. "The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was more blunt in her dissent.
"The Court’s order is stunning," Sotomayor wrote. "Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own invention."
