Sonia Sotomayor, an avowed leftist who was installed on the Supreme Court by Barack Obama as part of his agenda, now also taken up by Joe Biden, to promote abortion, has judged a Texas law that will come before the court on procedural challenges next week.
She said she’d strike it down as unconstitutional.
The law was adopted some months ago and has been in the Biden administration bull’s-eye ever since, and so far two cases against it have made it to the Supreme Court. Both have failed to produce the decision Sotomayor demands – to halt its enforcement.
In the recent decision announcing the court would hear arguments on Nov. 1 on whether the federal government can take states to federal court for injunctive relief, she said, before the arguments are heard, she has concluded the law is unconstitutional.
She explained that women who are unable to access an immediate abortion in Texas “will suffer personal harm … [and] may even be unable to obtain abortion care altogether.”
Pro-life activists have criticized the use of the words “abortion care” since abortion is a medical procedure that literally guarantees that one of the two patients at risk will die.
The state law is unique in that it doesn’t give state officials authority for any abortion ban, which in this case bans most abortions after about six weeks.
Instead it authorizes any citizen to sue for a civil judgment of up to $10,000 from anyone violating the ban and providing or assisting in an illegal abortion.
According to The Hill, Sotomayor delivered a “written rant” advocating for the abortion limit to be destroyed.
She claimed, “The state (empowered by this court’s inaction) has so thoroughly chilled the exercise of the right recognized in Roe as to nearly suspend it within its borders and strain access to it in other states. The state’s gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic.”
The point, however, of this fight and another the Supreme Court will also hear, about a Mississippi abortion case, is to overturn the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision that created a right to abortion in America.
The author of that opinion, Harry Blackmun, had pointed out that if the personhood of the unborn was established the Constitution would then protect that unborn infant, not allow an abortion.
With the scientific affirmations over the decades, the personhood of the unborn is widely accepted now except for those to advocate abortion.
Sotomayor’s arguments rest on her belief that the Roe decision is embedded in the Constitution and cannot be changed, when, in fact, the high court routinely changes such precedential decisions when appropriate.
She complained that abortion providers in Texas are suffering from “agonizing” circumstances.
“Patients are ‘devastated’ to learn they cannot access care, and the ‘turmoil’ cause by the act leaves them ‘panicked, both for themselves and their loved ones,'” she said.
She also fretted that women seeking abortions were going to other states’ abortion businesses and creating delays there.
“I cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages,” Sotomayor stormed. “These ruinous effects were foreseeable and intentional.”
She cited, again, the court’s “precedents,” which the current cases are intended to overturn, in describing the right to abortion as “constitutional.”
“As noted, S.B. 8 was created to frustrate that right by raising seemingly novel procedural issues, and it has had precisely the intended effect,” she admitted.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.