Posted on 03/05/2020 12:46:08 AM PST by Morgana
WASHINGTON — The legislation at the center of Wednesday’s Supreme Court case was originally introduced by a black, pro-life, Democratic female state senator who says the legislation will “make sure women are protected.”
Louisiana state Sen. Katrina Jackson introduced the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, or Act 620, in 2014, which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. These admitting privileges would allow a woman to go directly to the hospital if she were to need urgent care.
Opponents say the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act would hinder and potentially eliminate abortion access in Louisiana.
But 42-year-old Jackson said the law would protect women from unsafe or unhygienic abortion clinic practices.
“Just as Louisiana cares for the life of the child, it’s somehow a big secret that we also care for the life of the mother,” Jackson said at a Tuesday press conference in Washington, D.C., where both she and other Louisiana lawmakers deplored dangerous practices of Louisiana abortion clinics. They also emphasized the need for abortion doctors and abortion facilities to meet the same medical standards as hospitals.
“Louisiana stands together with women everywhere because we just don’t fight for us, we fight for our daughters, our nieces, and our aunts and everyone who’s yet to come, who has a decision to make,” the state senator said. Primis Player Placeholder
“Well, as long as that decision is legal, we’re going to hold the physicians to the same standards in the area of women healthcare, that we hold them to in the area of man’s healthcare,” she added.
Jackson’s pro-life stance set her apart from many of her Democratic peers and alienate her from pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood that say abortion is particularly necessary for women of color.
Jackson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that she does not legislate based on race issues or political party.
“I represent people of all races and all parties, I represent males and females,” she said, but she noted that the majority of Louisiana districts are overwhelmingly pro-life and overwhelmingly want restrictions on abortion.
“We are pretty pro-life,” she continued. “Texas, our sister state, is pro-life, our neighbor state, Mississippi is pro-life, Alabama is pro-life.”
“All the Southern states, we really uphold family values,” Jackson added. “And so being pro-life is a family value for us.”
“And also in doing so we do not pass judgment on a woman who chooses to have an abortion because it’s legal,” she told the DCNF. “But we do make sure that what she chooses is safe.”
The state senator said that at this moment in politics, she does not feel that the Democratic Party is accepting of her pro-life stances.
“They’re going to have to rethink that if our party is to be successful,” Jackson warned, noting that 70% of registered Louisiana Democrats believe there should be restrictions on abortion and that 30% of registered Louisiana Democrats are pro-life and “don’t believe in abortion.”
“I need them to be successful because I am a pro-life Democrat, and I am a whole life Democrat which means that I believe in life from conception to death, and so I have to advocate for those things,” she added.
One of the Leftist reasons in 1973 for legalization was to eliminate unsafe, “back alley” abortions.
can these celebrities define how an abortion is different than Islamic “honor killings”?
safe legal rare was always a lie
“ One of the Leftist reasons in 1973 for legalization was to eliminate unsafe, “back alley” abortions.”
That’s right.
All lies. Abortion is evil, everything about it is a lie.
There is a pretense that “Admitting privileges” allows for protection of the murderous mother. It is actually a standard for assuring that the abortionist is a doctor in good standing.
Pro abortionists are fighting ag as Indy this? Why?
People work all day to give money to the government for this waste of taxpayer money. For what? Why would people fight this law?
To provide for back alley abortions. A doctor who doesn’t have admitting privileges within 30 miles of his practice - in other words, nowhere, is what? Not exactly a doctor. He is a back alley abortionist. Which is all any of them are.
Nobody ought to be kidding themselves.
Pro abortionists are fighting ag as Indy this
Fighting against this
I’m a doctor , and I thought exactly as this lady. Why would you allow a friend or family member to undergo a D & C by a guy who doesn’t have privileges?
Oh, wait. Abortion is different.
As the trend shifts to the rights of society over the rights of the individual, you end up with forced abortions as the have done in China.
A barber shop doesn’t enjoy such anonymity and they aren’t taxpayer funded!
Some court cases or cliff hangers... this is more akin to a coat hanger.
Once you erode the family unit, and replace that with “the community” or “the gov’t” then you control the lives of the people, even before they are born...but esp after conception thru to their birth, and of course there after.
The Hillary Clintons, the AOCs, the Bernies...etc these are the ones who decides where a person works, where they live etc.
Is this good or bad for society. Good question.
You can argue this either way.
It’s more efficient to totally control the population of the people, and have them united under one goal ie to expand and improve the human population and quality of life
but OTOH,
At what price...and is that true?
Seems like a free society that exists and follows the law...would be more efficient.
On a legal basis this is a loser for the abortion promoters and they know it. It is not about abortion per se but it is about who can bring a legal action; that is third party standing. Abortion supporters don’t want to lose the right to petition on behalf of unnamed injured parties, which is what they are doing here. Take that away, as the SCOTUS has done in other cases, and they lose this tool.
Without it some injured woman would have to surface and file a claim. It is unlikely any would file against this Louisiana law and others like it that will be passed..
A friend of mine was a professor at a university in Moscow before she moved to the USA. She told me about a friend of hers who had the government come to his door and tell him that he needed to get a job.
He told them “I have a job. I am a poet.”
The government told him that he was not on the list of approved poets and that he had to get a job.
He refused.
They put him in prison for refusing to work.
That’s the communist form of unemployment.
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.