‘Very, very, very wrong’: Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer speaks out on Texas abortion law
‘I’ll add one more very,’ says SCOTUS justice appointed by Bill Clinton
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Justice Stephen Breyer has spoken out against the Supreme Court’s decision not to block the Texas law that bans abortion once a heartbeat is detected.
In an interview with NPR, Mr Bryer was asked why the Supreme Court deserves respect after the 5-4 decision handed down “in the dead of night”.
“Look, I thought the last decision you mentioned was very, very, very wrong. I’ll add one more very,” Mr Breyer replied. “And I wrote a dissent and that’s the way it works.”
In his dissenting opinion, Mr Breyer recognised that Texas delegates the power to prevent abortions not to the state but any single private citizen.
“But I do not see why that fact should make a critical legal difference. That delegation still threatens to invade a constitutional right, and the coming into effect of that delegation still threatens imminent harm,” he wrote.
The Texas Heartbeat Act, or SB 8, bans abortion once the heartbeat of the fetus is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into the pregnancy.
The unsigned order said there were “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law”, but that the court may lack jurisdiction due to procedural technicalities.
Mr Breyer said it should not have been decided on procedural grounds, and that "we’ll see what happens in that area when we get a substantive matter in front of us".
“We thought that that particular case should not be decided just on an emergency basis,” Breyer said, adding the majority decision was “very, very wrong”.
“It’s a procedural matter, so we’ll see what happens in that area when we get a substantive matter in front of us,” he added.
Attorney General Merrick Garland, however, is not waiting for the issue to return to the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice announced on Thursday it would sue Texas to block the law, which it called “clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent”.
A spokeswoman for Texas governor Greg Abbott dismissed the legal challenge as a political ploy.
“The most precious freedom is life itself,” said the governor’s press secretary Renae Eze in an emailed statement to The Hill.
“Unfortunately, President Biden and his Administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn. We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments