�鶹Ů��

For the pro-life movement, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday in two Texas abortion regulations was the most devastating defeat in decades. Representative Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is one of the movement’s most vocal supporters, described the decision as “tragic,” irrefutable proof of “the incredibly high stakes the Supreme Court vacancy holds for the unborn child.” The sting of the defeat in this case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, is hard to overstate. (Mary Ziegler, 7/2)

Let’s be charitable and say that state officials do not lie when they say what they are doing — but are just being selective for purposes of persuasion. ... That’s why the sales pitch for 2013’s abortion restrictions emphasized women’s health. The Legislature passed a law that cut the number of abortions but camouflaged it as an effort to protect women seeking abortions. (Ross Ramsey, 7/5)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday fired a warning shot in Ohio's direction by overturning a Texas anti-abortion law. That Texas law, and Ohio's abortion laws, aren't identical. But there are enough similarities that the Ohio General Assembly has some serious thinking to do. Otherwise, taxpayers will end up paying the tab for unnecessary, costly and likely futile lawsuits. (7/1)

Having served on the Kentucky Supreme Court and the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, I find your editorial reveals a misunderstanding of the limitations and functions of appellate courts. The editorial characterizing as “preposterous” a unanimous Court of Appeals decision reversing Fayette Circuit Judge Ernesto Scorsone’s March decision to allow an unlicensed abortion facility in Lexington to continue operating ignores the rule of law in favor of result-oriented political correctness. (J. William Graves, 7/1)