SCOTUS Rules on Indiana Abortion Laws ⚖️

Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images

Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images

What’s going on?

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the provision of an Indiana law that allows for the state’s prohibition of abortion based on sex, race, or disability should remain blocked. They did rule, however, in favor of the part of the provision that dictates the burial or cremation of fetal remains.

Thomas makes a statement

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote and published a concurring opinion, detailing the historical use of abortion to advance an agenda of eugenics. This statement has been viewed in different lights by publications on either side of the aisle.


LEANING RIGHT:

Daily Wire: Pro-Life Victory: SCOTUS Reinstates Indiana’s Fetal Remains Disposal Law

The Federalist: Justice Clarence Thomas Blasts Abortion As A Tool Of Racist Eugenicists

The right is focusing on what they consider “wins” for the pro-life movement: Justice Thomas’s statement about why he supports the court’s sidestepping of the abortion questions, and the decision that fetal remains are required to be buried or cremated. These wins will most likely be taken as green lights to the pro-life movement to continue their agenda of passing strict anti-abortion legislation in hopes of bringing their appeals to SCOTUS.

LEANING LEFT:

LA Times: 
Supreme Court’s Indiana abortion law ruling reflects conservative reluctance to tackle Roe

NY Times: Supreme Court Sidesteps Abortion Question in Ruling on Indiana Law

The left is choosing to look at the reluctance on behalf of the Supreme Court to directly address issues that pertain to Roe v. Wade. They are looking at the voting records of the two justices whom President Trump appointed, and analyzing what this will mean in the context of the strict abortion laws passed in states such as Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.


Where’s the common ground?

Although the right is taking a more decisive “victorious” stance on the issues, pieces from outlets on both sides of the political spectrum have expressed the lack of conclusiveness from the Justices of the Supreme Court that this particular ruling provides. Their expression of what the future will bring is also similar; both sides agree that the pro-life movement stands to benefit in some form or another from this ruling.

Pro-lifers right now

ee971c49-7890-4c08-984f-b5e045136cd1.gif

 

Share this story!