There isn’t much to say about the gay marriage ruling that hasn’t already been said. Here is my favorite post on the subject: Time to Stop Defending Marriage and Time to Reintroduce It, Says Advocate
The furor over the gay marriage decision has drowned out two anti-life decisions that I think you should know about.
Abortion in Texas
SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to block Texas from enforcing part of their new regulations of abortion clinics. These regulations would have closed over half of the state’s 19 clinics. They included some really common sense measures like requiring abortion clinics to run like surgical centers and for their doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. More than 400 women have died from legal abortions. These kinds of regulations could save at least one of the two lives that walk into the clinic that day.
The ruling blocks the enforcement of these regulations at least until they decide in Fall whether or not they will hear the case. Insiders think that it is very likely that they will hear the case as it gives them a chance to define a term used in their Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision back in 1992. There, the court ruled that states generally can regulate abortion unless doing so places “an undue burden” on a woman’s right to get an abortion. This would give them an opportunity to define “undue burden.” Apparently the death of the baby doesn’t even come to the judges’ minds.
Please add this court case to your prayers this summer.
Death Penalty Drugs
In yet another 5-4 decision, SCOTUS upheld the use of an extremely dangerous and painful drug in executions. Not only that, but they delivered a lethal blow to the anti-death penalty movement by effectively asking the activists to suggest a better way to do executions. As Judge Alito said in the opinion:
Our decisions in this area have been animated in part by the recognition that because it is settled that capital punishment is constitutional, “[i]t necessarily follows that there must be a [constitutional] means of carrying it out.” And because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain. After all, while most humans wish to die a painless death, many do not have that good fortune. [Emphasis mine]
This court clearly doesn’t care about life: that of the unborn, the convict, or any one in between. God help us all.