Supreme Court Won't Block Vaccination Mandate

 The Supreme Court denied an emergency application which asked the court to block enforcement of required vaccinations for health care workers in Maine notwithstanding their religious objections (10/30, A16):

Not surprisingly, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito,  dissented. Justice Gorsuch opined that the hardships borne by health care workers, now being fired for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs, made their "plight...worthy" of the court's attention. Apparently, in the view of these three justices, the plight of religious health care workers far outweighs the harm being done to thousands of women in Texas whose constitutionally recognized right to abortion is being blocked by state law. The health care needs of these women seem to matter little and they may be forced to travel to other states for help, bear the children of rapists or simply suffer their fate in silence while the Texas law is tested in court. 

Where were your concerns and those of your conservative colleagues on that one , Justice Gorsuch?

Supreme Court Schedules Argument on Texas Abortion Law

 Let's state the obvious; at least five justices of the Supreme Court disapprove of abortion and likely disagree with the holding of Roe v. Wade, that there is a constitutional right of privacy which protects a woman's right to obtain an abortion before the advent of fetal life. 

The Texas law which permits financial punishment of abortion providers and those assisting them, is unquestionably unconstitutional under current law. Yet, by repeatedly refusing to enjoin its application, a majority of the court is signaling their intent to overrule Roe v. Wade and strip women of a right previously protected by the constitution. In doing so, the court is allowing Texas ( and any other state that may follow suit ) irreparably to deprive women of the immediate health care they require. Setting an early date for oral argument is hardly any solace to women whose health needs will be unaddressed and whose rights will be irretrievably lost in the interim. Nor does it alter the likely demise of Roe v. Wade which the majority of the court seems to be straining at the leash to bring about.