The Catholic University of America

Lucia Silecchia, professor, law, was interviewed by Crux and Catholic News Agency on the Supreme Courts decision to strike down a Texas law that sought to regulate abortion clinics. See below.

Pro-lifers call SCOTUS abortion decision a ‘new low’

From: Crux
Date: June 29, 2016
Author: Kaitlyn Landgraf

Catholics and pro-life activists expressed disappointment but little surprise over Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of a Texas law placing restrictions on the conditions in which doctors could perform abortions.

“This is a new low in abortion jurisprudence,” said Lucia Silecchia, a professor of law at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law.

“Today, all who care about the dignity of human life, not just the Catholic community, should mourn a decision that combines disrespect for the life of the unborn with a cavalier attitude toward the well-being of women,” Silecchia said. ...

> Continue reading.

Read more about Silecchia's expertise.

Supreme Court ruling blasted for pro-abortion bias in Texas ruling

From: Catholic News Agency
Date: June 27, 2016
Author: Matt Hadro

... There was “no language” about “the government’s interest in ‘preserving and promoting fetal life’” in the decision, said Lucia Silecchia, a law professor at The Catholic University of America. This was expressed in a previous case – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – but the Court didn’t invoke it in Monday’s ruling, she said.

“To have the Supreme Court address abortion without addressing this interest in any meaningful way is a new low in abortion jurisprudence,” she told CNA.

That third parties with financial interest brought the case to the Court, and not women directly affected by the law, undermined the argument that the case was about women’s rights, Silecchia added.

“Despite the fact that they dubiously asserted the rights of women, their real interest in this case was not women’s health but their own profit,” Silecchia said of “the abortion industry and abortionists” who brought the case. The clinics could have abided by the regulations, she added, but “it would cost a substantial amount of money to retrofit facilities or purchase new land.”...

> Continue reading.

Read more about Silecchia's expertise.