Commentary
The Supreme Court heard an important abortion case on March 4, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, which is about a Louisiana law that required abortion providers to have hospital-admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, ensuring the safety of the women getting an abortion.
The case is almost the same as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, based on a similar Texas law, which the Supreme Court found in 2016 to be unconstitutional because it placed an “undue burden” on the women seeking an abortion.
Despite a clear-cut case with straightforward legal anecdotes, on the days leading up to—and the day of—oral arguments, the majority of the mainstream media almost uniformly presented the case as one which restricts abortion rights or as one that would even overturn Roe v. Wade.
U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said the case could “determine the fate of Roe v. Wade.” Progressive organization Swing Left said the case could “roll back reproductive rights for a generation.” Planned Parenthood tweeted the case could “pave the way for more attacks” on their “fundamental freedoms.” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) tweeted the case was “a thinly veiled attempt to take reproductive rights away.”
Wednesday morning Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood on the Supreme Court steps and threatened the two newest Supreme Court Justices over the case: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
There’s only one problem. The case itself didn’t challenge those issues, and any conceivable ruling on the matter wouldn’t either. Whether the previous ruling is overturned or affirmed, Roe will stay in place, and no one will lose any “reproductive rights.”
In fact, if the Supreme Court affirms the previous ruling, women will be safer having an abortion in Louisiana than they were prior to the law, which was enacted because there had been a history of egregious health care violations in the state.
The media’s obsession with hiding the basic facts of this case and twisting them to becoming gigantic talking points that would ban abortion nationwide tomorrow is directly tied to their abject ignorance, their inability to acknowledge how harmful abortion is to women and babies, and to dutifully spout the talking points of the Left’s obsession with abortion.
Such misleading headlines are not only incorrect but can really lead to misunderstanding the role of the Supreme Court, what would happen if Roe was overturned (it would go back to the states), and even how important abortion is to most Americans.
According to some polls, up to almost three quarters of Americans surveyed support abortion restrictions, and abortions themselves are at the lowest they’ve been since Roe. In many ways, the progressive media appears to be more protective of abortion than everyday Americans, and that’s a shame.
Nicole Russell is a freelance writer and mother of four. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Politico, The Daily Beast, and The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @russell_nm.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
