"DASHING THROUGH THER NO: EXPLAINING SCOTUS's LOGIC ON LIFE" - Tony Perkins, Washington Watch, Dec. 11, 2018; https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20181211/dashing-no [AS I SEE IT: I sometimes don't understand legal discussions, and this is clearly one of them. It would be easy to simply over-react as many pro-lifers are doing, even to questioning just how pro-life are the 2 conservative justices who voted with the liberals. When looked at carefully, this really was NOT a decision specifically aimed at abortion funding. And so, as stated in this article, I think we need to step back and see how the Court eventually rules more specifically on the issues involved - hopefully something that happens sooner than later. - Stan]
For a taxpayer-funded organization, Planned Parenthood has gotten away with a lot. So three years ago, when David Daleiden stumbled on the biggest scandal of the year -- the group's baby body parts ring -- states thought they finally had the proof they needed to cut those Medicaid contracts. Eleven tried, only for some to end up in courts that couldn't decide if they had that right. Yesterday, the Supreme Court had a chance to settle the issue. It passed.
For pro-lifers, the news that the justices weren't taking the case was a bit of a shock. After all, a majority of Americans don't think abortion groups should get taxpayer dollars to begin with. Now, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the court, they can't help but wonder: shouldn't SCOTUS have at least heard the case? And if Kavanaugh sided with the more liberal members of the court this time, should we be worried about how he'll vote in the future?
A lot of legal experts, FRC's included, are trying to cut through the noise of the media and explain what all of this means for the future of the Planned Parenthood funding debate. Based on the social media reaction, some conservatives are so upset that they're ready to join the Left's "Impeach Kavanaugh" campaign. Is it concerning that he agreed to let the lower court rulings stand? Potentially. But, as FRC's Vice President for Policy, Travis Weber, points out, we don't know the whole story.
What we should be concerned about is that SCOTUS's non-decision leaves America in limbo on a fundamental question: how much leeway do states have in ending Medicaid contracts? They've needed clarity on the issue for years -- and unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the only one who can provide it. But it's important to remember, FRC's Director of Religious Freedom Advocacy Alexandra McPhee explains, the main question before the Court wasn't whether states ought to have that freedom, but whether there was a private right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. Pro-lifers had hoped that the justices would have used the case to strike at the heart of the issue -- but the court has to be asked to decide that, and they weren't here.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas seems as frustrated as the rest of us that the court turned down the chance to speak more directly into both issues. Together with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, he argues that the question "is important and recurring. Around 70 million Americans are on Medicaid, and the question presented directly affects their rights," he writes. "Because of this Court's inaction, patients in different States -- even patients with the same providers -- have different rights to challenge their state's provider decisions."
One of the most important functions of the court, he explains, is to resolve "important matter[s]" on which the courts of appeals are "in conflict." "We created this confusion," Thomas insists. "We should clear it up." So why didn't they? Thomas thinks "it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.'" But that, he goes on, "makes the Court's decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion... [The cases] are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood's ability to challenge the states' decisions."
Besides, he urges, "Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background... We are responsible for the confusion among the lower courts, and it is our job to fix it." Fortunately, there may be another opportunity to do exactly that. As Alexandra reminds us, a preliminary injunction isn't final. So while the abortion industry may be celebrating, this is by no means a vindication of Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funding. The justices have plenty of reasons (none of which we may ever know) for denying cert. In Maryland v. Balt. Radio Show, Inc., the Supreme Court offered some possibilities. "A case may raise an important question but the record may be cloudy. It may be desirable to have different aspects of an issue further illumined by the lower courts." Or maybe the six justices were waiting for a final ruling in the Fourth Circuit before weighing in. Whatever the rationale, the court's decision not to hear the case has nothing to do with how they would decide it.
As for Justice Kavanaugh, this is one decision in a very young Supreme Court career. He's reserved judgment here, and until we see more of his work, we should too.
For a more in-depth look at the denial, check out Alexandra and Travis's new blog post, "Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Decisions to Defund Planned Parenthood." [http://www.frcblog.com/2018/12/supreme-court-refuses-rule-state-decisions-defund-planned-parenthood/]
[italics and colored emphasis mine]
| -------------------------------------------- | ||
Praying Through the Open Doors World Watch List for persecuted believers:To learn more, please go to -https://www.opendoorsusa.org/take-action/pray/monthly-prayer-calendar/
As you look forward to celebrating the birth of our Savior, persecuted believers in other countries like Somalia, Pakistan and Nigeria are preparing for a time of heightened persecution. This month, join us in praying with the Church around the globe.
joy
December 13 | MALDIVES - Pray for the ministry among Maldivians living outside the
country. Pray that local churches in these surrounding countries will reach out to this people with the gospel.*Name has been changed to protect identity. |
No comments:
Post a Comment