In a somewhat shocking decision, (one somewhat gets used to “Obama’s Judge” Chief Justice John Roberts siding with anti-life justices), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, ruling that Louisiana’s 2014 Unsafe Abortion Protection Act was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s decision upheld the 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision, which was an example of legislating from the bench, an act prohibited by the U. S. Constitution.

The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, known as Act 620, requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Previously, Louisiana state law required physicians at all outpatient surgical centers, except abortion facilities, to have admitting privileges at a local hospital to treat complications. In 2014, the Louisiana Right to Life and legal consultation from the Bioethics Defense Fund, and then State Representative, now State Senator Katrina Jackson, authored the bill.

The bill received bipartisan support in the Louisiana Legislature and was signed into law by former Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal. It was immediately challenged by the abortionist lobby, and wound its way through federal court until Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with four liberal justices in a 5–4 ruling, arguing that requiring such medical privileges was unconstitutional and placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

Should anyone be surprised that a judge appointed by a former president who supported partial birth and after birth abortion (infanticide) would once again cast a deciding vote by siding with the court’s liberal justices?

In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Louisiana law is “almost word-for-word identical” to a Texas law that the court had ruled was unconstitutional in 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

“We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court’s findings of fact,” Breyer wrote. “Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.”

Even though Roberts had cast a dissenting vote in the 2016 case, he said in his concurring opinion that he believed the past case was wrongly decided– yet he voted with the majority because of court precedent.

Did he forget about the U.S. Constitution?

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Supreme Court precedent is not law. The U.S. Constitution is– a law the justices have sworn to uphold.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is not final; it can be overturned by Congress– if Congress had the backbone to challenge it.

It sounds more like Roberts was pressured to vote a particular way, rather than follow his conscience, by his own admission.

At least Justice Clarence Thomas still understands the role of the court. He wrote in the dissenting opinion,

“Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.

“Abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”

Thomas understood that the case was about protecting the rights of the patients’ health– what if something goes wrong and they need to go to the hospital– the abortionist should be an admitting physician. Instead, the five justices ruled that they don’t care about the mother’s health.

Thomas understood that abortionists do not have legal standing to challenge laws on the basis that they restrict a woman’s ability to get an abortion. Yet for some reason, abortionists won a case that actually has the potential to seriously harm the patient’s health.

Sen. Jackson said of the ruling:

“The Supreme Court has issued a tragic decision that continues its practice of putting the interests of for-profit abortion businesses ahead of the health and safety of women. Together with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans and women and men, we passed the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act to protect the health and safety of women in Louisiana. While today’s decision is not what we wanted, we will never stop working to put the women of Louisiana above the interests of the abortion businesses.”

She also released a video response:

Democratic State Senator Jackson of Monroe said of the ruling:

“The Supreme Court has issued a tragic decision that continues its practice of putting the interests of for-profit abortion businesses ahead of the health and safety of women. Together with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans and women and men, we passed the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act to protect the health and safety of women in Louisiana. While today’s decision is not what we wanted, we will never stop working to put the women of Louisiana above the interests of the abortion businesses.”

Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director for Louisiana Right to Life, said of the ruling:

“With its decision today, the Supreme Court has given license to abortion businesses to operate shoddy clinics without credentialed physicians, binding a state’s hands to protect the safety of women. We are deeply disappointed the Supreme Court insists on continuing to serve as the national abortion control board, rather than respecting the interest of state government in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. When abortion businesses aren’t held to the same standard of care, the health of women are at risk. Louisiana Right to Life will continue to work to enact common-sense regulations that protect both women and their unborn children from the unscrupulous and profit-driven abortion industry.”

Dorinda Bordlee of the Bioethics Defense Fund and a consulting attorney to Louisiana Right to Life, said of the ruling:

“Louisiana has set the standard for passing and defending bipartisan legislation that is both pro-woman and pro-life. Whatever the reason, every woman undergoing abortion deserves the customary standard of medical care owed to every member of the human family. It is a tragedy that unelected Justices have once again usurped the democratic process in a way that elevates abortion industry profits over the health and safety of women.”

The American Pastors Network and pro-life groups across the nation also strongly condemned the ruling.

“We are endowed by our Creator God with certain God-given rights, and ‘among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ No more profound human words were ever spoken,” American Pastors Network president Sam Rohrer said. “Recognizing God as Creator is where understanding liberty begins and human responsibility extends. Life results when God creates.

“The sacredness and sanctity of all life—born and unborn—exists because God creates. It’s this life that government is to protect. Government leaders position themselves to receive dire judgment from God, the Judge of mankind, when life is murdered.”