|

Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal's senior Washington correspondent, spoke with PBS NewsHour host Lisa Desjardins on Tuesday about the U.S. Supreme Court's split ruling in an Indiana abortion case. The court punted on reviewing whether the state lawfully can restrict certain pre-viability abortions, but the justices upheld the state law requiring abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal remains.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg clashed in the court's decision. Thomas, writing in a 20-page concurring opinion, said Indiana's pre-viability abortion restrictions “promote a state's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” Ginsburg wrote: “This case implicates 'the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state.'”

In her PBS NewsHour appearance, Coyle spoke about what the court did and did not do—and how the court arrived at its decision.

“[Thomas] used his concurrence to trace—basically, he tied together birth control, abortion, and eugenics, and he said that abortion in particular was rife, his words, with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” Coyle said.

Coyle continued: “He used the term 'supposed constitutional right to abortion' in part of his opinion. Justice Ginsburg, she would have turned away Indiana's appeal in its entirety, and she used constitutionally protected right of a woman to have an abortion.

“And she also called out Justice Thomas in a footnote. He had spoken about the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy. Justice Ginsburg said, a woman who terminates—who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate her pregnancy is not a mother. So there is this battle over the language, and it does reflect how they view the constitutional right.”

Watch the PBS NewsHour video above or read the full transcript here.