A United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit judge condemned Roe v. Wade being a precedent "without a shred of support" from the U.S. Constitution, and forcing him to vote with two other judges against a law similar to the Texas Heartbeat Act.
The Christian Headlines said federal Judge Amul Thapar voted in overturning the Tennessee House Bill 2263 in a vote of 3-0 on its section on "pre-viability" while dissenting on its section on "discrimination."
Thapar, appointed by former President Donald Trump, called on the Supreme Court to overturn the said abortion laws that served as precedent for his decision.
According to the Court of Appeals opinion on the Tennessee case, House Bill 2263's particular provisions in question to the court were Section 216, which "criminalizes the performance of pre-viability abortions at cascading intervals" of two to 24 weeks of gestation once detection of a fetal heartbeat has been determined; and Section 217, which criminalizes abortion based on discrimination having determined the unborn's "race, sex, or a Down Syndrome diagnosis."
Thapar revealed in his opinion, which was "Concurring in Judgment in Part and Dissenting in Part," on the case that he was bound by the Supreme Court precedents Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey although he totally disagreed with it. He pointed out that these laws moved the "policy debates" on abortion "from the country to the courtroom."
"Unsurprisingly, wrenching responsibility from the hands of state legislatures and giving it to judges has resulted in acrimony and results-oriented decisions. Judges have been enlisted to serve as legislators, producing a make-it-up-as-you-go abortion jurisprudence. All the while stripping states of their sovereign authority," Thapar pointed out.
Thapar explained that the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are contrary to what the United States Constitution stipulate that allows states to enact laws such as House Bill 2263. He cited the "dozens of legislatures" elected by voters to "protect life", which is confirmed by surveys that show "most Americans support significant limitations on abortions."
"The Roe/Casey framework doesn't just conflict with the original understanding of the Constitution--it cannot be justified under any modern approach to constitutional interpretation. Even living constitutionalism, taken seriously, permits Tennessee's (and many other states') efforts to combat fetal pain," Thapar underscored.
Thapar also pointed out that most countries safeguard the life of the unborn and that those who advocate abortion includes North Korea and China, which he raised are really not good role models to begin with.
Yet, Thapar said, what the United States does in line with this policy is looked up to by others that doesn't even reflect what America's Founding Fathers have established in the beginning.
"It doesn't have to be this way. The Founders understood that for our Republic to succeed, judges had to stay out of policy disputes. That's why on matters like abortion, where morality and theology meet with public policy and medicine, the Framers wisely took the decision out of judges' hands," Thapar disclosed.
"Instead, they left the decision with state legislators, who could pass laws that reflect their constituents' oft-changing views on these difficult policy questions," he continued. "The result? Tennessee can do one thing, Ohio another, and Kentucky and Michigan can learn from both."
In addition, Thapar said changes could still be done to what is currently happening in America though he is "bound" to comply to what is currently instituted by the Supreme Court on the matter.
"Only the Supreme Court can tow our jurisprudence back to the safe harbor of democratic legitimacy. The Constitution leaves decisions like this to the states. The state legislatures can do what we can't: listen to the community, create fact-specific rules with appropriate exceptions, gather more evidence, and update their laws if things don't work properly. And if the public is unhappy, it can fight back at the ballot box," Thapar said.
"The courts should return this choice to the American people--where it belongs."
"But as a lower court judge, I am bound by the Supreme Court's decisions, whether right or wrong. And Casey mandates that we strike down any general bans on abortions before viability. Thus, I concur in the judgment as to section 216," he added.
Following the majority opinion regarding Section 217, Thapar sided with the two other judges "to strike down the anti-discrimination statute at the altar of abortion is wrong."
