Letter to the Editor: Trump Supreme Court Kavanaugh Sided with Planned Parenthood

Pro-life advocates worldwide were dumbfounded by President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh siding with Planned Parenthood on December 10, 2018 by refusing to hear the case Trump apparently hoped would help him make good on his campaign promise to defund Planned Parenthood.

In a 6 to 3 decision, only Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch took the pro-life position. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Kavanaugh in siding with the 4 liberal justices.

President Trump might be more shocked than anyone seeing the way Kavanaugh ruled—or in this case, refused to rule, by not agreeing to hear the case. This is quite a loss for pro-lifers since only 4 justices are required to agree to pick up a case, not a majority of 5, so this one was lost by a single vote, Kavanaugh’s vote. Noteworthy is that at least Trump pick Neil Gorsuch took a stand against Planned Parenthood and abortion.

Justice Clarence Thomas responded in disgust to the shocking split decision asking, “So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?” and in answered his own question snapping, “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood’.”

Once again, Planned Parenthood has succeeded as positioning the organization is being one that provides more than just abortion services. Perhaps another case in the not-too-distant future will overturn Roe vs. Wade, by the Supreme Court ruling on a straight up abortion case. Time will tell.

Jerry McGlothin

Tucson, Arizona

About Opinion 362 Articles
Under the leadership of Editor in Chief Huey Freeman, the Editorial Board of the Arizona Daily Independent offers readers an opportunity to comments on current events and the pressing issues of the day. Occasionally, the Board weighs-in on issues of concern for the residents of Arizona and the US.

9 Comments

  1. No…he sided with legal precedent/constitutionality…just like he was put there to do. He was an excellent choice.

    • Actually legal precedent/constitutionality has nothing to do with this. He voted against the Court hearing the case. Legal precedent and constitutionality are applied in making the decision on the case once it is heard. If you read Justice Thomas’ dissent re: the Court’s decision to not hear the case you can see the reasoning from which one can conclude that all six of the Justices erred.

  2. and the cost of 60,000,000 saints because of choice of convenience will be a wrath from God that will equal the souls of the saints piled high to the heavens – won’t be long for that event to occur.. a price this nation will pay for it’s decisions – perhaps this being of the last chances for the time of grace to continue – the nation has made it’s decision

Comments are closed.