Do Doctors have First Amendment Protection from Anti-Abortion Laws?

Are Physicians Protected by the First Amendment?

Are Patients protected by HIPAA, the Patient Privacy Law?

Can just anybody, or even the state, sue, or arrest and charge with a crime anyone who discussed abortion, was referred for, or had an abortion — even if it was out of the state of the patient’s residence?

How “long” is the “long arm of the law,” and can it actually investigate, charge, prosecute, and punish physicians and/or patients for receiving private healthcare advice and/or services?

Suddenly! Yes, suddenly — as in acutely, and even cataclysmically-like-an-earthquake so — physicians and other healthcare professionals seem to find themselves between a proverbial rock, and a hypothetical hard place.

The reason why, is because 6 GOP-nominated radicals on the still-9-member Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) {Those justices are: Alito, Thomas, CJ Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett.} have completely ignored judicial precedent — which is the “holy grail” of jurisprudence that helps form the foundation of law itself, and thereby give stability to civil society — and overturned at least TWO rulings of an earlier court — Roe v Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) — in their 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).

The Roberts Court, April 23, 2021
Seated from LEFT to RIGHT: Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor
Standing from LEFT to RIGHT: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

Of course, overturning even century-old precedent has been the characteristic hallmark of the Roberts Court. Since becoming Joker in Chief Justice in September 2005, he has presided over 20 reversals of well-established precedented opinion, some dating as far back as 1911. If, in the law, nothing is TRULY ever settled, and any court now, or in the future, can simply overturn any law or decision with which they disagree — regardless of how long it’s been in effect, and regardless of what their confirmation testimony was — then our nation’s foundation is insecure.

There are numerous Constitutional problems with the 6 radicalized jurists’ decision, not the least of which is that, by returning to the states the ability to decide abortion law (or any other law over which Federal law has presided), it completely ignores undermines and usurps the essential tenet of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which is that Federal law has ultimate authority over any other law by a state, or locality.

To add insult to injury, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas — long known as “The Silent Justice,” because from Wednesday, February 22, 2006, until Monday, February 29, 2016 — 10 years — he NEVER spoke one word at hearings — wrote in Dobbs that judicial activists could also overturn other recent cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Obergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, and other decisions with which they personally disagree.

On page 3 of his opinion (page 119 of 213 of the entire document), he wrote in part that,

“…in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Justice Thomas continued in part by writing,

“That 50 years have passed since Roe and abortion advocates still cannot coherently articulate the right (or rights) at stake proves the obvious: The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification.”

He predicates his entire opposition to the ruling in Roe upon but one idea: His distaste for the term