He also changes his justification on why he signed unconstitutional ban from what he said in 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that restrictions on abortion clinics, including requiring providers to have “admitting privileges” to hospitals within thirty miles of their facilities, are unconstitutional burdens on women seeking medical assistance.The 5-3 ruling today will also have implications here in Wisconsin, as Gov. Scott Walker and Republicans passed similar restrictions here in 2013.
Walker expressed his disappointment in the ruling. “Today's decision from a divided court is a prime example of activist jurists imposing their will on the people,” he said.
He added, “These issues should be left up to the democratic process. I believe in the sanctity of life and will always fight to protect it.”
In 2014, however, while campaigning for re-election to his position as governor, Walker said he signed these laws for the purposes of protecting women’s health, de-emphasizing his pro-life stances.
“I supported legislation to increase safety, and to provide more information for a woman considering her options,” he said back then.
Elected officials did indeed pass legislation on abortion restrictions. In most cases, the democratic consent of the people, through the work of their elected officials, should be respected -- except in instances where the rights of individuals are negatively impacted. When that occurs, the courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States) can rightly strike a law as unconstitutional, and that’s what happened today.
Scott Walker scoffs at that notion with his official statement. He also forgets that his justification to the people of Wisconsin in 2014 hinged on different attitudes, and not his pro-life agenda.
Walker is inconsistent in his reasoning, and his pooh-poohing on “activist jurists” demonstrates he has a flawed understanding of judicial review and on how our government is framed to work.
Of course, Walker had no problem with the Koch bought Wisconsin Supreme Court ordering that all of the evidense against him in the John Doe investigations being destroyed.
ReplyDeleteNot surprising at all.