Dear Editor:
Conservatives are so adorable when they are furious. Their jaw starts to quiver and the lower lip comes out; it's just so precious when that mean, nasty old Supreme Court doesn't let them have their way.
Cases in point; the recent kerfuffle over the Supreme Court striking down the Texas abortion restrictions and the July 1 RedBlueAmerica column by Mathis and Boychuk exemplify conservative hypocrisy.
After the Supreme Court issued their opinion striking down law HB-2, the whining and caterwauling from Texas politicians was epic; the Texas governor stated that the ruling "erodes the state's lawmaking capability, and subjects more innocent life being lost."
As well it should erode the state's lawmaking capability. Make no mistake; the 2013 Texas law HB-2 had absolutely nothing to do with protecting women's health and safety, and everything to do with placing restrictions and roadblocks to abortion. The legal theory behind these laws is often called TRAP (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers). Indeed, scientific analysis from the University of Texas at Austin showed very clearly that TRAP laws actually increase medical risk to women who are seeking abortions.
Closing clinics delays women seeking abortions. Delay increases second-trimester procedures which are much more risky than first-trimester procedures. Additionally, some women who cannot afford to travel resort to self-abortion.
The July 1 RedBlueAmerican column that discusses whether pharmacists have religious rights is another classic example of conservative hypocrisy. The Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit from Washington State pharmacist. (Washington State requires their pharmacists to carry the morning after pill, and three pharmacists sued saying the state was trampling their religious liberty).
An individual pharmacist not carrying these pills would normally be of little import; there is always another pharmacy nearby that does. But consider the situation of a remote town with one pharmacy. That could be a problem, particularly for poor women who cannot easily travel. Washington State solved this potential problem by requiring pharmacists to carry the pills.
According to Boychuk, "the liberals on the Supreme Court contort logic, eviscerate language, and mangle precedent."
No. The Supreme Court got it exactly right in both cases. In the Texas HB-2 case, the justices saw through the smoke and mirrors and properly called out the lie. In refusing to review the Washington State lawsuit, the Supreme Court properly deferred to the right of the state to regulate their professional pharmacists.