Posted on 09/01/2014 2:05:44 PM PDT by Morgana
Late Sunday night, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an emergency request with a federal appeals court to uphold a pro-life law credited with closing multiple abortion clinics and cutting abortions 13 percent, saving an estimated 9,900 babies from abortion.
The legislation, House Bill 2 (HB2), requires abortion facilities to meet the same safety standards of other Ambulatory Surgical Centers in the state, ensures that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and bans painful late abortions on fully formed babies.
texas9bThe admitting privileges portion of the law was the portion responsible for closing abortion clinics and, because so many shut down or stopped doing abortions, Judge Lee Yeakel claimed that constituted an undue burden on women.
“The ambulatory-surgical-center requirement is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on the right of women throughout Texas to seek a previability abortion,” Yeakel ruled.
AP reported that Yeakel also ordered the McAllen and El Paso areas to be exempted from a separate provision of the law requiring abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital bhecause few abortion clinics are in that area and women would have to drive far to get to another one.
Planned Parenthood did not challenge the law’s prohibition on abortions that take place at 20 weeks or later, a provision based on evidence that demonstrates the baby can feel pain at that stage. Pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the omnibus HB 2 bill into law in July 2013.
Abbott criticized Yeakel in his motion to the appellate court, saying the district judge “failed even to mention (much less follow) precedent” from the appellate court and U.S. Supreme Court. Abbott asked for a response from the appeals court by Friday and he said he thinks it will overturn the judge’s decision.
In fact, in March, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding the Texas law Wendy Davis opposed that was responsible for closing abortion clinics in the Lone Star State. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District Court in Austin and restored key portions of a pro-life law.
In their decision, the appeals court upheld sections of the law that require abortionists hold admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and that the dangerous RU-486 abortion drug be administered according to FDA procedure.
The judges wrote, “The district court held that parts of both provisions were unconstitutional and granted, in substantial part, the requested injunctive relief. A motions panel of this court granted a stay pending appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the stay. We conclude that both of the challenged provisions are constitutional and, therefore, reverse and render judgment, with one exception, for the State.”
Abortion clinics appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia issued a ruling saying the high court would not stop the law while the case continued.
That kicked the lawsuit abortion advocates filed against the law back to Judge Yeakel, who ruled today on the admitting privileges portion of the law and blocked it from going into effect as planned next week.
Although pro-life advocates hailed the law as a decision for women’s health, by ensuring abortion practitioner hold the same admitting privileges at local hospitals as legitimate doctors do, that shut down or temporarily closed abortion doctors who could not meet that standard.
Had the law been upheld, abortion activists feared Texas may have only seven abortion clinics instead of 19.
When the panel reviewed the bill, they found that the state acted within its prerogative to regulate the medical profession by heeding these patient-centered concerns and requiring abortion practitioners to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The state also found that it would be safer for patients to drive further to receive an abortion at a surgical facility with a credentialed and privileged physician than to seek an abortion at a nearby, substandard clinic. The bottom line is women deserve better than substandard care.
Additionally the opinion written by Judge Edith Jones explained why admitting privileges are necessary. She said, “Requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges would also promote the continuity of care in all cases, reducing the risk of injury caused by miscommunication and misdiagnosis when a patient is transferred from one health care provider to another.”
Judge Jones also noted that Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion.
Abortion is not a safe medical procedure.
Although abortion proponents argue that having an abortion is like having a tooth extracted, forty-two years of choice has not served women well. From botched abortions and injured women, to decades of psychological pain, infertility, and higher chances of developing breast cancer, women deserve to know the truth about the so-called “five-minute, painless” abortion.
This legislation acknowledges the fact that abortion hurts women and mandates that the state implements measures to ensure that women are given the highest standard of care possible. This is especially necessary in scenarios where women experience complications from abortion, such as hemorrhage, uterine perforation, or infection from an incomplete abortion. In the past, the delay in care has caused women unnecessary trauma, injury, and even death.
For example, a Chicago woman died at a Planned Parenthood facility after a botched second trimester abortion because she did not receive immediate care after an abortionist perforated her uterus.
I really do not see how even people that favor abortion could object to the clinics meeting the same cleanliness standards as other out-patient medical facilities.
But they do oppose this law
Cuts in the way of profits.
Thank you Lord for a God-fearing Texas Attorney General. May you bless his decisions and guide his path. In Jesus Name, Amen
I can’t wait to hear what Wendy has to say about this travesty. How dare Abbott do such a thing!! /s
Yet another win for modern-day eugenecists.
Racists across the world can unite behind the democrat banner, of unfettered abortion for minorities and other 'undesirables'.
they don’t want cleanliness standards as high as other medical places,
they don’t want abortionists to have admitting privileges b/c many hospitals around them don’t want them there,
yet they want to be taken seriously as a medical group,
and they want everyone to believe it’s the right that is at war with women, not them.
they butcher them and coverit up while they die, and we’re the ones at war with women.
That is what makes no sense to me.
Like that jack a$$ abortion doctor in Philly or where ever he was that got convicted.
Not that I would do such a thing...but if I went for an abortion I would want the cleanest, safest facility with a top notch doctor with hospital privileges. Any thing can happen.
I thought the whole purpose of all of this was to keep women from “back alley” procedures.
hospitals know abortionists are the lowest scoring docs. not only don’t they want a stigma of giving them admiting privileges, i also think hospitalsare worried about being a co-defendant when an abortionist injures/kills a woman and the death happens in their hospital - again, b/c abortionists are the lowest passing docs and have crap skills and are lawsuits just waiting to happen.
further i think hospitals rightly look down on them not as equals or peers and these knobs haven’t earned the right to have admitting privileges.
i think all this factors in.
Thank you, Governor Abbott, for doing the right thing. Let’s hope Texas succeeds in its efforts to protect and defend life.
Or Attorney General Abbott, rather (though he’ll be adopting the title of Governor soon enough after he thrashes Davis).
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.