The Judiciary committees in the House and Senate will be conducting hearings over the so-called “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court of the United States, according to The Washington Examiner.
Both Democratic controlled houses of Congress have taken up the issue of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote Wednesday that declined their option to hear arguments to halt Texas’ new Heartbeat law, banning abortions when there is a detectable heartbeat in the baby.
Progressives nationwide have stood up in opposition to the Texas legislation that protects the lives of the unborn with similar criteria to what hospitals use to determine whether a patient is still in need of care they’re legally obligated to offer.
“This anti-choice law is a devastating blow to Americans’ constitutional rights — and the Court allowed it to see the light of day without public deliberation or transparency,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Friday.
Democrats have cried foul on a number of issues, none of which seem to center around whether the unborn are alive at the point that they have a detectable heartbeat.
“At a time when public confidence in government institutions has greatly eroded, we must examine not just the constitutional impact of allowing the Texas law to take effect, but also the conservative Court’s abuse of the shadow docket,” Durbin went on.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York also weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement Thursday, seeming to indicate that his committee also considered the pro-life decision by a majority conservative court to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Nadler said they would hold hearings to “shine a light on the Supreme Court’s dangerous and cowardly use of the shadow docket,” adding that “decisions like this one chip away at our democracy.”
The inflammatory decision came in response to a petition to the court to hear an emergency request to block the state ban on most abortions, which the court declined. In their majority opinion, the court said that the order which took effect on Sept. 1 “is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law.”
In other words, in order to hear the case the court would need evidence that the law somehow violated a higher law, or was in conflict with the state’s other laws, which they did not conclude that it was.