US Supreme Court Says State AG Can Defend Law
By: John Semmens
In an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron has the authority to defend the state's law against live-dismemberment abortions. The ruling reversed a 6th Circuit Court decision that “a State Attorney General lacks the authority to take action counter to the wishes of the current Governor.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito said that “defending the state's laws is an independent function of the state's Attorney General. The fact that the current governor disagrees with a law enacted prior to his administration is not a valid reason for trying to negate its defense in court. His only legitimate route is to ask the current legislature to repeal the law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision, saying that “first, quibbling over how an unwanted child is dispatched should not impede a woman's legal right to terminate that child. There may be good medical reasons for why dismembering the child is necessary. For example, the pregnancy might be too far along for a less gruesome method to be safe and effective. Second, since it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court will reverse its 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent, state efforts to limit the unrestricted right to an abortion created by that decision must inevitably be struck down. The efforts of Cameron and his ilk are just wasted motion clogging up the system.”
In related news, President Biden vowed “to give up ice cream for lent as penance for my continued support of abortion. Personally, I'm against it. I would never have one myself, but Democrat voters demand that their freedom to dispose of unwanted children must be legally protected. This includes the women who don't want to be mothers and the men who don't want to be fathers. Not every father can have a son as brave as Beau or as financially successful as Hunter. So, I can't blame them for wanting out of their obligation to support a child they sired.”
