Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

 

In a 5-3 decision today, the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that placed unreasonable restrictions on abortion clinics. In the most significant abortion ruling since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the more liberal justices, joined by Justice Kennedy ruled that the law, which required abortion clinics to be staffed by physicians with admitting privileges at a hospital and meet standards required of surgical centers and hospitals did nothing to advance women’s health, and that its provisions were unduly restrictive and not rationally related to a compelling government interest. In other words, the Court ruled that a state cannot unreasonably restrict a woman’s constitutionally protected right to an abortion by camouflaging it within its right to control medical practice in the state.

The Dissent contended that the decision overturns the most basic legal principle in civil law in the United States; Res Judicata.  This is a rule that states that once an issue has been litigated and resolved, it is to be considered “settled law” and cannot be re-litigated on the merits of the same issue. Moreover, it argued that the plaintiffs in this case, abortion providers, were arguing for the rights of a third party (women who may seek an abortion), and that this is impermissible in American jurisprudence. Both arguments seem valid on their surface, but lose to the facts when held up to the light of the argument of the majority. Moreover, the Dissent’s argument that the majority overstepped by using an inappropriate standard for review, Strict Scrutiny, instead of the less rigorous standards that are applied to non-fundamental constitutional rights is specious at best. The right to an abortion arises from the right to Privacy, a fundamental right, itself arising from the right to Liberty. As such, Strict Scrutiny becomes he correct standard, making today’s decision a model of carefully thought out jurisprudence that should go a long way toward preventing such draconian legislation in the future.

Finally, it is interesting to note that even had Justice Scalia lived, and joined the Dissent, the outcome would have been the same. Justice prevailed.

TRUMP’s “AMERICA FIRST” CAMPAIGN

 

In his last press conference, after winning the California primary, in between various ad hominem attacks, “The Donald” began speaking about his intention to create an “America First” platform in which he would stress American Nationalism; return our focus to a more isolationist view in which we would not get involved in world affairs unless we were directly threatened, exclude any but Americans (we’re still not sure how he defines that) from our work force and become sufficiently protectionist to begin trade wars with other nations and destroy the world’s economy. Once again, a warning sounded regarding historical analogs.

In 1939, Nazi Germany’s invaded Poland. By 1940, the only major military power still resisting Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany was Great Britain (Russia had a non-aggression pact with Germany and was off bothering Finland until Hitler invaded them too). A Majority of Americans, still weary from World War I, certainly wanted Britain to win but did not want to send American soldiers to fight on foreign soil again. In fact, Congress had passed a “Neutrality Act” which virtually preventing the US from entering the war or even from assisting the Allies against Hitler.

While Roosevelt, understanding the threat the Nazis posed to the world, attempted to assist Great Britain in any way he could, he was solidly opposed by the America First Committee (“AFC”); an isolationist group with more than 800,000 members, mostly centered in the mid-west, and prominently led by Charles A. Lindbergh (of aviation fame) and the anti-Semitic Father Edward Coughlin. Lindbergh made several trips to Germany to confer with Herr Hitler, and nearly prevented Roosevelt’s “Lend Lease” program that preserved Britain’s ability to fight while Roosevelt began to move the US to a war footing. It was not until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, however, that the AFC lost its influence and dissolved. Had they been successful in “putting America First,” Germany would have won the war, Jews would be extinct, and the US would have been a critical year behind in preparations for the war that Roosevelt knew was inevitable.

Now, once again, Donald Trump (interestingly Donald “Drumpf” of German descent) wants to remake America into the isolationist, protectionist nation Lindbergh imagined as he met with Hitler. We dare not allow him to return us to that bygone era. America began its march to greatness as it became more involved in world affairs and became the only indispensable nation in the world following World War II. The reason why Trump will get along well with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jung Un is because they know he will “make deals” that will keep us out of their way as they take over control of much of the world. We cannot allow him to return us to that.

America is already great. We don’t need to make it great “again;” but we can make it better.