During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said something that sounds incredibly optimistic for a jurist of his reputation and experience. “Judges are like umpires,” he told the members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”
But when it comes to abortion-related policy, including even the funding of abortions, the courts have been a battleground on which judges side often in favor of abortion and the vendors profiting from their sale. The umpires seem to have chosen a team. This is all the more troubling as court watchers eagerly track cases headed right now to the high court.
As a result of this imbalance, the Trump administration has undertaken yeoman’s work in appointing judges who will look at the law without a bias in favor of abortion activism. The 44 judges appointed in February were the most approved in a single markup since 1981, representing signs of progress to those Americans tired of activist judges throwing out pro-life accomplishments in legislatures.
In just the past year, federal judges have blocked numerous pro-life laws, even though the laws were passed by duly elected officials and signed into law.
For example, Judge Richard Young, a federal judge in Indiana, blocked a law passed by the state that required physicians to report any physical or psychological complications from abortion. Reporting medical complications is common practice, and the Indiana state code lays out what must be reported to the state. But because this was about abortion, federal judges felt empowered to override common sense and grant abortion a special exemption from medical regulation.
Arkansas has also encountered judicial obstacles to its right as a state to regulate abortion. In June 2018, federal judge Kristine Baker blocked a state law that ensured two physicians were signing off and available to help in case of emergencies arising from using abortion drugs such as RU-486.
And just recently, federal judges banded together to block Louisiana from instituting basic medical standards, which require abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. But why? States routinely regulate medical practices; the state of Louisiana licenses physicians, occupational therapists, and perfusionists, to name just a few. The only reason to cover for crummy abortion facilities whose standards are too low for local hospitals is to cater to the abortion agenda.
A strong republic requires that states be able to exercise their proper powers, including the power to regulate abortion within their borders.
Sadly, new judges are a prerequisite these days for achieving a meaningful defunding of the abortion industry or enduring regulations to protect women’s health and safety from abortion vendors.
When it comes to the judiciary, Trump’s gains have been impressive. According to one report, the president has “more than doubled the number of judges it confirmed to federal appeals courts in 2018, exceeding the pace of the last five presidents and stocking the courts with lifetime appointees …”
It’s not ideal for the republic to be moving in this overly judicial direction, but if that’s the way it has to be, thank goodness for this influx of judges who respect life in law. Or even if they’re pro-abortion, at least these newcomers seem to believe that the issue should be left up to the states.
Several circuit courts have become more conservative and more sensitive to life issues thanks to Trump and the work of the Senate. That includes the 5th, 7th, and 8th circuits, which contain many pro-life Southern and Midwestern states, including Indiana, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
Because of this work, the system of checks and balances has been strengthened, decreasing the likelihood of federal judges deciding what a state is allowed to pass and not allowed to pass. This change should be welcomed across the political spectrum. After all, isn’t it groups like the ACLU that are always talking about disenfranchisement? Well there’s no larger disenfranchisement in the modern day than judges wiping away the preferences of citizens and their elected officials by deciding what vague phrases like “undue burden” means.
At the end of the day, Americans want to have a voice on abortion. According to a poll commissioned by Students for Life of America, 65 percent of Millennials support the right to vote on abortion-related policy and want a voice on abortion policy — something only possible if judges get out of the way and respect the balance of powers.
Let’s protect the right of citizens, strengthen our republic, and allow voters to have a say in abortion laws.
Matt Lamb is Director of Communications for Students for Life of America.
