Second Amendment supporters and legal analysts have taken note of a curious passage in the Supreme Court’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision announced Monday. Some are pointing out that the ruling actually makes a legal argument against gun control.
The Court struck down a Texas law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility on Monday.
In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer, responding to arguments about controversial abortionist Kermit Gosnell and his “House of Horrors” trial, employed an argument frequently used by those who oppose gun control:
Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.
Twitter users were quick to note the similarity:
Breyer: more laws don't deter lawbreakers. Interesting…. pic.twitter.com/DlNz4BD1GD
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 27, 2016
In majority opinion, Breyer argues that more laws do nothing for those intent on breaking the law. pic.twitter.com/R5PShLoAWS
— Joe Perticone (@JoePerticone) June 27, 2016
— Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) June 27, 2016
What if we were to take this line of thinking and apply it to gun control legislation? https://t.co/DbpqeOdynY
— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) June 27, 2016
In today's abortion opinion, Justice Breyer collaterally smashes cornerstone gun control argument. https://t.co/cXmSHlkLQU
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 27, 2016
Follow the author of this story on Twitter and Facebook: