The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals covers Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and it’s probably the most conservative Appeals Court in the country. Ten of its fourteen active judges and six of its nine senior status judges were appointed by Republican presidents. The court is a window into what the Supreme Court might be like if Justice Kennedy (or any of the four liberals) were to be replaced by a true movement conservative. We’d get reasoning like this:
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Texas’ tough abortion restrictions that have forced the closure of about 20 clinics around the state, saying the new rules don’t jeopardize women’s health.
A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and serve no medical purpose. After the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court had allowed the restrictions to go into effect while it considered the case, which could ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The new law requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and places strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills. More regulations that are scheduled to begin later this year weren’t part of the case.
In its opinion, the appeals court said the law “on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.”
It’s already forced the closure of approximately 20 abortion-providing facilities, but it doesn’t impose an undue burden on the “life and health of a woman”? Why not?
At least 19 clinics have shut down since the new law was approved and the 5th Circuit allowed the provisions on hospital-admitting privileges and abortion-inducing pills to take effect, leaving around 24 still open to serve a population of 26 million Texans. More closures could happen after the additional restrictions are in place.
In reversing the lower court’s decision, the appeals panel said Thursday that the district court opinion erred in concluding the law “imposed an undue burden in a large fraction of the cases.”
“The evidence presented to the district court demonstrates that if the admitting-privileges regulation burdens abortion access by diminishing the number of doctors who will perform abortions and requiring women to travel farther, the burden does not fall on the vast majority of Texas women seeking abortions,” the appeals court found.
So, a law that serves no medical purpose and places an undue burden on a significant minority of women is okay because it doesn’t effect a majority of them?
Basically, the movement conservatives will start with the result they want and work backwards from there to rationalize their decision. The law doesn’t matter. Precedent doesn’t matter. Public health doesn’t matter. Common sense doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that they restrict access to legal and safe abortions. So, that’s what this court did (pdf).
The three judges were Edith Jones (Reagan- Houston), Jennifer Elrod (Dubya- Houston), and Catharina Haynes (Dubya- Dallas).
It will be up to Justice Kennedy to decide whether their decision holds up. Will Kennedy try to turn the whole country into Texas and make us live according to their conservative values? Or will he tell Texas that they have to live by our values, which happen to be consistent with the law as it has existed for over 40 years?
