Posted on 03/06/2020 8:02:11 PM PST by Morgana
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its first abortion case since the confirmation of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. While outside the high court Sen. Chuck Schumer stoked the anger of abortion apologists by threatening the newest justices, inside the courtroom the lawyers representing the abortion providers cemented a new reality: that the abortion industry doesn’t want “safe, legal, and rare,”—it wants “unsafe, legally.”
That reality became clear in an exchange with Justice Kavanaugh about the Louisiana law under review in June Medical Serv. v. Russo, Sec. LA Dep’t of Health. That law requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
A lower court had struck the Louisiana law, holding the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt controlled. That decision held a Texas law requiring abortionists to maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic was unconstitutional. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside Hellerstedt, reasoning that unlike the situation in Texas, the Louisiana law would not create an unconstitutional burden on a women’s “right” to abortion.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the abortion providers argued that the Louisiana law, like the Texas law, placed an undue burden on women’s ability to access abortions. But Kavanaugh pushed their attorneys in a different direction: “If a state passed an admitting privileges law there, and suppose a state had ten clinics and two doctors for each clinic, but all 20 doctors could easily get the admitting privileges, so that there would be no effect on the clinics, no effect on the doctors who perform abortions, and, therefore, no effect on the women who obtain abortions,” Justice Kavanaugh hypothesized, “would a law be constitutional in that state?”
At first, Julie Rikelman, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights arguing on behalf of the abortionists, deflected: “That law would have no benefit, Your Honor, and it may pose a much harder question than this case.” But when pushed, Rikelman made clear that abortion advocates see no valid purpose for admitting-privilege laws of the kind at issue and thus all similar laws would be unconstitutional.
Such an argument is shocking because, as Elizabeth Murrill, the attorney who argued on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, made clear, Louisiana requires doctors who perform a dilation and curettage (D&C) after a miscarriage—a procedure Justice Ruth Ginsburg declared “very much alike” the typical surgical abortion—to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius of the clinic, unless the doctor held “a residency in the proper scope of care.”
So, while states can and do regulate doctors who perform a D&C following a miscarriage to ensure patients’ safety, abortion advocates maintain similar laws are unconstitutional when the D&C is performed on a woman carrying a still living human being. Yet, as the record in this case shows, such admitting privileges benefit women who suffer complications, such as the patients of Doe 3—one of the unnamed plaintiffs—who testified he had to transfer four patients to a nearby hospital for treatment of punctured uteruses and hemorrhaging. Doe 3, who held admitting privileges, provided the care at the hospitals.
Further, if anything, the facts of this case show the state has an even stronger interest in regulating the other abortion doctors involved in this case. For instance, one of the doctors, anonymously named Doe 1, is not an obstetrician or a gynecologist, but a graduate of the Saba University medical school in the Dutch Caribbean, where he studied “Family Medicine and Addiction Medicine,”—although he also has never actually practiced family medicine.”
Additionally, “Doe 1 conceded he had no training in abortion practice during his medical school or residency; instead he was principally taught on-the-job by Doe 3.” Doe 3 also “admitted he hired a radiologist and an ophthalmologist to perform abortions.” These are the doctors the abortion industry wants women to see unimpeded by state regulations.
No wonder Justice Samuel Alito found it “amazing” that the abortion providers would claim they had standing to challenge the Louisiana law on behalf of the women of the state, when their interests “are directly contrary to those of the—those individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff is claiming to sue, . . ” But, as the liberal justices pointed out during argument, the Supreme Court has long allowed abortion providers to challenge laws regulating abortions on behalf of their patients.
Yet the Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether that should be the case given the conflict in interests at issue. Alito seemed the only justice gravely concerned by this conflict, although Kavanaugh made a passing comment in concurrence of the concern. The remainder of the right-leaning bench stayed silent on the issue of standing.
While the right of t he bench remained reticent, clear from oral argument was that the four liberal justices remain in lockstep. And should they lock up one more vote, the abortion providers will score a victory—but it will be a loss to life and to women’s health.
Beyond sick. Poor babies.
My best guess is that LA law will be upheld.
Part of me wishes some prominent conservative Tweeters would come out and condemn Gorsuch and Kavanagh for voting to uphold the law because it protects the health of women who suffer an abortion complication. One could make the argument (I’m not saying I necessary would), that we shouldn’t care about the life of a woman who would have an abortion.
Abortion advocates warn of unsafe abortion practice in back alleys if Roe is overruled.
The street front clinics in practice are already those unsafe and un-sterile hack shops.
Sounds like they want death to the mother thru infection....or sterilization thru a botched abortion....as well as death to the baby.
Orwellian
The baby has a heartbeat, your actions to stop that heartbeat constitutes a murder.
a person has to be so totally given over to immorality and evil that they argue to the supreme court no less, that they don’t even need safety precautions when murdering a baby inside them- Gotta really really wanna be able to keep on murdering innocent unborns to make such a despicable argument-
Sounds to me like the abortion industry wants to be able to sterilize at choice anyone who has a procedure in their clinics.
Besides. Women who got themselves into the position of getting pregnant deserve all the physical consequences they can get. Right? Wrong! Those fighters for woman’s rights reveal their true hypocrisy when they don’t give a damn about the safety of the woman. We, who have seen how the abortion industry operates, know that abortion is a racket to exploit women because it is really about how much money they can make off their misfortune.
They are afraid to be overseen and regulated
I have never had an abortion, so don’t insinuate that I have or am for abortion.
I am merely arguing that one approach to get people to understand just how evil they should find abortion is to, as Rush used to say a lot on his show, “Demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.” I am arguing that some people tweet condemnations of the justices for upholding the same medical safety procedures- admitting procedures - that exist for ENTs when they perform nasal polyp removals.
If a couple prominent people tweeted in a very provocative fashion something to the effect of, “Screw these women who have abortions. We shouldn’t care when they bleed out. They deserve it,” it might bring attention to the disparities that exist between abortion clinics and say, cataract surgery clinics, when it comes to safety regulations.
Should Roberts decide on the side of the Pro-Life view of safety, I will be stunned.
Absolutely stunned.
I’m of the view whatever he’s got in his closet is still usable against him by the Democrats. As long as he’s on the court he’s going to be a threat to life and limb of the unborn.
The other four? Always going to be a threat to life and limb of the unborn.
Was not directed at you...was for anyone who attempts to justify a murder because they made poor choices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.