Evidence Shouldn’t Be Optional

The Supreme Court ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws. It is alarming that the justices have now indicated a willingness to consider a voting rights case next term, given Chief Justice John Roberts' feelings on research into the effects of gerrymander.

The recent injustice leveled by the Supreme Court's conservative justices in cases involving health, welfare and the future of the planet is testing the promise of democracy. Their decisions have put industry, religion, and special interests above facts. The role of expertise has been diminished.

The highest court in the land used to protect the health of the public when it upheld state vaccine mandates. This is in contrast to the way our current conservative justices view restrictions, such as exempting religious groups from bans on group gatherings or barring vaccine mandates for large businesses. Conservative justices have spouted misleading scientific claims. In his dissent on the Court's decision not to take on New York's vaccine mandate law for health care workers, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the workers demanding a religious exemption objected to the use of cell lines derived from aborted children.

We fear that this shift away from our social responsibilities will lead to needless suffering and death. The Court should value statistics, value research, and understand how ignoring it in making decisions is contrary to common decency and their responsibility as judges to the people of the United States.

The majority justices ignored the fact that denying people access to legal abortions leads to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. The justices who voted in favor of Dobbs put religion and the status of a mass of cells over the health and welfare of actual people who make up half of the US population. After their ruling becomes practice, the justices in the majority will no doubt continue to enjoy their disregard for the medical profession and the privacy of the doctor- patient relationship.

In striking down New York's gun safety law, the majority justices ignored the fact that unfettered access to guns leads to more murders and suicides. They didn't take into account the fact that guns are responsible for more child deaths than cars. They didn't pay attention to the data showing that repeal of a gun law increases killings. Against the backdrop of Uvalde, Buffalo and every mass shooting our nation has suffered, it was a coldhearted decision. It was a slap in the face of our health care system and the emergency clinicians who must try to save people shredded apart by high-powered weapons. Gun safety laws are part of what makes a compassionate nation and the majority justices showed their callousness.

Climate change is also present. In stripping power from the EPA to help power plants mitigate their carbon output, the majority justices once again said evidence doesn't matter. The planet is getting warmer. Coal is a major contributor of greenhouse gases. Taking regulatory power away from the EPA puts states in charge. Reducing the amount we need to slow warming will not be achieved by piecemeal efforts. The solution to this problem is federal action. Climate change is a public health problem. The health and welfare of people in the US are affected by an increase in ferocious winter storms, unbearable heat, damaging rain and wildfires. The Supreme Court made those actions more difficult because of the science.

There is no requirement for the Supreme Court to consider science when making their decisions. Justice Amy ConeyBarrett has said that she is not a scientist. Expertise and knowing when you don't know anything makes for better justice. The justices in the majority show that they ignore science and evidence in order to be constitutional purists. The majority ruled against the separation of church and state in two education cases, one of which forced Maine to fund schools that teach misinformation about evolution and climate science. Other countries used to be inspired by the United States to protect their liberties. The decisions that the Supreme Court made this term are being watched and reacted to by the rest of the world. It isn't good.

Good decisions and judgments can be made without being a scientist or mathematician. If you are a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, with the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people hanging on your every opinion, you need to use the data that science painstakingly compiles when handing down your decisions. We cannot return to a world where the bodies of women and people of color are objects. Science fiction has warned us about the future and we need to stay away from it. Evidence should be used to rule judgement.