Bravo Lone Star State

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:

AUSTIN, TX—Democrat lawmakers are speaking out to oppose the state’s ban on abortions after week six of pregnancy, warning that millions of lives could be saved if the law is allowed to stand.

“What’s happening in Texas is a national outrage,” said Democrat house speaker Nancy Pelosi. “We are estimating that this bill could save over a million lives in the first ten years alone. That’s one million more people living in Texas who could actually grow up to vote Republican. It’s unconscionable.”

“These unborn children could be future engineers, architects, farmers, or other contributors to society,” Pelosi continued. “One of them might even become a doctor and find a cure for COVID. How would we be able to keep the people in line then?”

President Biden also weighed in on the controversial Texas bill. “I’ve been instructed to say that the right of a woman to have an abortion at any time was a founding principle of our constitution,” he said. “I mean, I haven’t read that thing for a while, but my aides assure me it’s there. I think it’s right next to the section on mask mandates and mandatory vaccinations. Say, what were we talking about again?”

Go here to read the rest.  The Supreme Court, in a five to four vote, has refused to enjoin the Texas law:

Yeah, you guessed it.  Roberts joined the three other liberals.  But a win is a win and this one is glorious to behold.  Go here to read the opinion and the two dissents.  It may not seem like much when read, but in the light of Roe case law it is revolutionary.  In Heaven Scalia is smiling.  From his dissent in Carhart twenty-one years ago:

While I am in an I-told-you-so mood, I must recall my bemusement, in Casey, at the joint opinion’s expressed belief that Roe v. Wade had “call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution,” Casey, 505 U.S., at 867, and that the decision in Casey would ratify that happy truce. It seemed to me, quite to the contrary, that “Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since”; and that, “by keeping us in the abortion-umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any Pax Roeana, that the Court’s new majority decrees.” Id., at 995—996. Today’s decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by a firestorm of criticism–as well it should. I cannot understand why those who acknowledge that, in the opening words of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, “[t]he issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society,” ante, at 1, persist in the belief that this Court, armed with neither constitutional text nor accepted tradition, can resolve that contention and controversy rather than be consumed by it. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people–where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it–and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.

This is only the beginning of litigation on the Texas law, but I think it is the ending of Roe as the Vatican II of US Constitutional law that must not be directly challenged.  Well done Texas, and well done pro-lifers who have fought the Long Fight!