Clarence Thomas Slams Supreme Court “Bending the Rules” to Create “Putative Right to Abortion”

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Jun 27, 2016   |   11:43AM   |   Washington, DC

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spared no criticism in his dissent today in the Texas case where the high court invalidated health and safety measures that have protected women from dangerous abortions and saved the lives of thousands of unborn babies.

Thomas said the Supreme Court was doing the bidding of the abortion industry and deciding to “bend the rules” to create a “putative right to abortion.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the dissenting opinion, wrote, “Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.’”

He continued, “… today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights— especially the putative right to abortion.”

As to the bending of the rules, here’s what Thomas wrote:


Thomas added: “Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitutional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgements until the last threads of its legitimacy disappear.”




“I remain fundamentally opposed to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence,” he concluded.

Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life, told LifeNews applauded the high court justice.

“Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in this case is very poignant and speaks to a Court which is bending over backwards to protect the abortion industry which preys on women and kills over a million unborn babies a year,” she said.