Supreme Court agrees to consider whether Kentucky AG may intervene to protect state’s law banning the dismemberment of living unborn babies

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-life Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron

One of National Right to Life and its affiliates’ signature issues is a ban on the hideous dismemberment of living unborn babies.

Today, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether to allow pro-life Kentucky General Daniel Cameron to intervene to defend HB 454, passed in 2018, after pro-abortion Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s administration dropped the case following a split Sixth Circuit panel’s decision to uphold an injunction against the law.

“I promised Kentuckians that I would defend our laws all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and that’s what we’ve done,” Attorney General Cameron said in a statement.  “Since day one in office, we’ve fought to defend House Bill 454, even when the Beshear Administration refused to defend it. This law reflects the conscience of Kentucky by banning the gruesome practice of live dismemberment abortions, and it’s important that Kentuckians have a voice before our nation’s highest court. I was elected to provide that voice, and we look forward to making our case to the Supreme Court.”

As NRL News Today reported, AG Cameron quickly moved to intervene when the Beshear Administration said it would not appeal. As we also reported, the Sixth Circuit would not allow Kentucky to intervene. This morning the Supreme Court said Cameron could.

Back in December, a coalition of  20 state attorneys general filed a amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Petitioner v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. defending Cameron’s right to defend his state’s abortion laws. The amicus argues

The Sixth Circuit panel majority deprived the Commonwealth of Kentucky from seeking complete appellate review of the District Court’s injunction invalidating one of its duly enacted laws. And it did so on purely procedural grounds, holding that the Kentucky Attorney General could not intervene to vindicate state law on appeal because a single state officer had decided to abandon defense of a law passed by both houses of its Legislature and signed into law by its [previous] Governor.