Supreme Court Declines to Revive Abortion Restriction

 The Supreme Court, for the moment, thankfully has declined to stay an injunction issued by a lower court preventing the government from requiring women seeking an abortion pill to travel and appear in person to obtain the medication from a hospital or medical office. The court below found that this requirement imposed an undue burden on the constitutional right to an abortion given the risk of needless travel during the coronavirus pandemic.

In his dissent Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, complained that the court had sanctioned restrictions on religious liberty and free expression by refusing to exempt churches from state shutdown orders but protected abortion rights from government safety regulations. In Justice Alito’s distorted view, the court had allowed serious infringement of free speech and religious liberty in the name of safeguarding public health but now fails to intervene when abortion rights are protected at the expense of public health.
Justice Alito’s reasoning  is logically flawed. Congregating for religious, or any other purpose, poses a health threat. So does a federal requirement that a woman travel unnecessarily to obtain medication provided by mail. Allowing government restriction in the religious context and forbidding it to prevent access by mail to a constitutionally protected right to abortion are each consistent with an overriding concern for the protection of public health. The court’s approach, Justice Alito’s complaint notwithstanding, does not elevate abortion rights above free expression or religious liberty; it subjects each right to the same test of insuring public health.