Sotomayor slams pro-life Texas law in dissent that could signal SCOTUS will overturn Roe v. Wade

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed a pro-life Texas law on Thursday, referring to it as a “disaster” and a “grave disservice to women.”

The law in question generally bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists in an abortion for $10,000.

While the law’s months-long journey through the federal court system has been complicated, NBC News contextualized the situation succinctly: “Sotomayor issued the sharply worded dissent to a Supreme Court order that declined for the second time to send the case back to the original trial judge in Texas, a venue that the challengers of the law had hoped might provide them with some relief.

“The Supreme Court had sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has now delayed a resolution of the case even further while the law remains in force,” the outlet added.

In her dissent, which fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kegan signed on to, Sotomayor claimed the Texas law robs women of their “constitutional rights.”

“Today, for the fourth time, this Court declines to protect pregnant Texans from egregious violations of their constitutional rights,” she wrote.

She went on to describe the pro-life legislation as “a convoluted law that instills terror in those who assist women exercising their rights between 6 and 24 weeks.”

“State officials knew that the fear and confusion caused by this legal-procedural labyrinth would restrict citizens from accessing constitutionally protected medical care,” the justice added.

Sotomayor concluded by claiming the entire case represents “a disaster for the rule of law.”

“This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a state continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee,” she wrote.

Writing for the liberal outlet Slate, commentator Mark Joseph Stern said the conclusion of Sotomayor’s dissent “reads like a eulogy for” Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that established a woman’s so-called constitutional right to get an abortion.

“Recall that Sotomayor already knows whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe in June. Would she write with such ferocity if five justices had, against all odds, decided to save the constitutional right to abortion?” Stern asked.

“It seems exceedingly unlikely. Much more probable is that Sotomayor knows the end of Roe is near and has given up trying to persuade or placate her anti-abortion colleagues. She is, instead, in burn-it-all-down mode, unleashing her opprobrium on the justices poised to extinguish a fundamental liberty, unencumbered by the fear of losing a vote that she could never win,” he added.