NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Supreme Court to decide Tuesday whether Kentucky AG to be allowed to defend law banning the dismemberment of living unborn babies

by | Oct 11, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center technically addresses the limited issue of whether Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron will be allowed to add his voice to the chorus of those demanding an end of the evisceration of living unborn children. For the moment, the issue is his right to intervene, not whether the law is constitutional. But his voice is not a lone one: overwhelming the state legislature backs him up.

As do Arizona and 22 other states who have filed “a ‘friend of the court’ brief supporting Cameron in which they described the question presented by the case as one ‘of profound substantive importance to our democratic system of governance,’” according to Amy Howe” “States,” they wrote, “have a compelling and indisputable sovereign interest in defending the constitutionality of their laws when challenged in federal court.”

Their 21-page amicus brief argues that in denying Attorney General Cameron’s request to defend the law, the Sixth Circuit “allowed the unilateral capitulation of a single unelected official to be the final word on whether a duly enacted law of Kentucky would be invalidated (and thus de facto repealed)…even though another Kentucky official—its Attorney General, who has unquestioned authority to represent Kentucky in federal court—sought to defend the constitutionality of the statute on the merit.”

After the Kentucky legislature overwhelmingly passed the law in 2018, Kentucky’s only abortion clinic, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, went to federal court to challenge its constitutionality. Meanwhile pro-abortion Democrat Andy Beshear defeated Matt Bevin, his pro-life opponent for governor, and once the full 6th circuit upheld the district court, his Health Secretary dropped defending the law.

“Cameron went to the Supreme Court in October 2020, asking the justices to weigh in on whether he should have been allowed to intervene and, if so, to send the case back to the lower courts for another look in light of their June 2020 decision in June Medical,” Howe said. They agreed, again with the caveat they were going to judge whether Cameron could interview, not whether the law met constitutional muster.

Tomorrow, Cameron will have his day in court.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: