The Supreme Court just quietly handed a big victory to abortion opponents

[babylonsister]

The Supreme Court just quietly handed a big victory to abortion opponents
Trump's judges just got a clear signal that they can chop away at abortion rights and get away with it.
Ian Millhiser
May 29, 2018, 12:08 pm

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will not hear Planned Parenthood of Arkansas v. Jegley, despite the fact that the lower court’s opinion in this case is at odds with the Court’s 2016 opinion striking down a Texas anti-abortion law.

As a general rule, it is important to not over-read the significance of the Court’s decision not to hear a case. Often, the justices may turn aside a case for idiosyncratic reasons that have little to do with the merits of the case itself.

In the abortion context, however, anti-abortion lower court judges have a long history of reading the Supreme Court’s precedents creatively in order to limit reproductive freedom. The Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was widely viewed as the justices’ way of signaling to these lower court judges that they went too far.

Viewed in light of this history, anti-abortion judges are likely to read the Court’s non-decision in Jegley as a signal that they can once again start playing games. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is filling the federal bench with judges who oppose Roe v. Wade. The result is likely to be a quiet rollback of abortion rights as Trump’s judges and their allies feel out just how much leeway the Supreme Court is willing to give them.

So, regardless of what the Court intended to accomplish by turning away Jegley, the practical effect is likely to be serious restrictions on the right to choose.

more...

https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-quietly-handed-victory-to-abortion-opponents-f193063d7c30/

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Yep...now it begins.

GOP hates women, remember that.

[Fullduplexxx]

7. Apparently so do the 3 democratic women

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. Nonsense. They dont hate women, they are fine justices. Republicans do hate women, we KNOW this.

[Fullduplexxx]

9. Why didnt the 4 on the bench take this up

[dsc]

22. maybe because they thought they would lose

and make a precedent. It is bad news because that is the only likely reason they didn't take the case.

[atreides1]

13. Yep

And GOP women are the largest group of women haters in the GOP!!!

[Fullduplexxx]

2. There are 4 democrats on the bench . Scotus could have picked this up

Why didnt they?

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Only takes 4 so this is a good question. For FUCK sake if those 4 justices

dont see the absolute NIGHTMARE situation, women are doomed

[Fullduplexxx]

5. Arent 3 of them women as well?

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. Yes, 3...so which one didnt want to do this?

[EffieBlack]

10. I don't know why they made their decision, but it's possible that the liberal justices thought

this was not a good case to take up - if the facts aren't good - and could possibly end up being more harmful than helpful to have the Court decide it. Sometimes, in these instances, the justices think it's better to let the case stand below and wait for a case that's stronger on the facts and law that can be used to more strongly uphold rights rather than be used to strike them down.

As I said, I don't know what was at play here, but just noting that declining a case is sometimes done for the right reasons.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. And I wish I had stayed OUT of this thread because now MY comments are being used to ATTACK

these fine, female SC justices

Of course there is a GOOD reason they would do this and the reason the GOP would do it is because we know they hate women.

PERIOD

Thanks for your post.

[MrsCoffee]

14. Possibly because they fear that a retirement is imminent, and they don't want to chance

a Trump appointee overruling what is left of Roe.

[Fullduplexxx]

16. if Trump gets another Justice on that bench Roe v Wade is going to come screaming up to that

Bench Faster than anyone will believe. they will find some way to get it up in front of judges again. Like they did with Citizens United and with the Abboud case they will get some right-winger to file a lawsuit to get this in front of the scotus

[Princess Turandot]

15. I believe Planned Parenthood was asking for a preliminary injunction to be reinstated...

which had been granted at the district level, but overturned by the 8th circuit court of appeals. That requires 5 votes, not 4.

The case has yet to be heard at the District Court level.

This was the question they presented in their brief:

QUESTION PRESENTED When a state abortion law mandating a “contracted physician” with hospital admitting privileges would effectively ban medication abortion, offer no discernible medical benefit, and leave only one remaining abortion provider hundreds of miles away from significant population centers, does the undue burden test established in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), entitle a court to preliminarily enjoin the law without making a concrete estimate of the number of women who would be prevented or postponed in having an abortion?

The bolded section is what the 8th Circuit criticized the lower court for doing when it issued the original injuntion.

[Fullduplexxx]

18. Thanks for that . I couldnt believe that the 4 on that bench woould let that slide

[onenote]

19. No. It was a petition for certiorari, which requires four votes to be granted

[Princess Turandot]

21. Okay.

[LanternWaste]

20. Are you unable, or simply unwilling to research this question you continue to ask?

Are you unable, or simply unwilling to research this question you continue to ask?

[lapfog_1]

4. just covered on MSNBC

seriously, WTF... clearly at odds with previous rulings.

[Demsrule86]

12. But at least we are safe from emails

Seriously, I begged people online to vote for Hillary for the courts...it will take generations to undo this damage. And if he wins a second term...kiss the progressive movement goodbye.

[Control-Z]

17. This makes me so damn angry.

I'm close to tears I'm so pissed.

[Vinca]

23. We have to win state elections and change the laws there. Trump is seeding the federal

courts with far right judges who are chomping at the bit to undermine Roe.

[Stuart G]

24. k and r nt.