WhatFinger

Even basic sanitary requirements are too much for the pro-aborts to accept

SCOTUS tosses Texas abortion law, designed to prevent more Kermit Gosnell butcher shops

By Dan Calabrese ——--June 28, 2016

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

With Anthony Kennedy joining the four Justices who are always liberal (as opposed to Kennedy's liberal-when-he-feels-like-it approach to interpreting the law), the Supreme Court tossed out the very modest Texas abortion restrictions that simply required abortion clinics to meet the same safety requirements as every other medical clinic, including doctors who are sufficiently credentialed to be able to admit patients at local hospitals. These restrictions were put in place to prevent more Kermit Gosnell-style butcher shops from springing to life. But you can forget that. Any restriction on abortion, even one designed to keep people safe (apart from fetuses, obviously) is too much for the pro-aborts and their champions on the Supreme Court:
Texas officials said it was intended to protect women's health. The ruling means similar laws in other states are probably unconstitutional and could put in jeopardy other types of abortion restrictions enacted in various conservative states. "The decision should send a loud signal to politicians that they can no longer hide behind sham rationales to shut down clinics and prevent a woman who has decided to end a pregnancy from getting the care she needs," said Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. President Barack Obama, whose administration backed the abortion providers in the court challenge, said in a statement he was "pleased to see the Supreme Court protect women's rights and health" and that restrictions like those in Texas "harm women's health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman's reproductive freedom." Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's four liberal members in the ruling, with the remaining three conservatives dissenting. The court declared that both key provisions of the law - requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities - violated a woman's right to an abortion. Writing for the court, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said, "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes."
As is so often the case, the left chooses the convenience of institutions they favor over the safety and welfare of the general public. With this law, the Texas legislature hoped to stop unqualified butchers from using unsafe, unsanitary practices in horror-show facilities. If this law had been passed about clinics offering any other medical facility, you would not have heard a peep out of the left. But abortion is sacrosanct, and no one who provides them nor anyone who wants one can be asked to accept any limit or requirement whatsoever. If there's anything funny here, it's that the left implicitly admits with its position on this issue that government regulations are a burden to people wanting to access a product or service. Otherwise they wouldn't fight tooth and nail every time someone wants to put the slightest restriction on access to abortion. But they always do, and a majority of the Supreme Court will apparently always back them up, no matter what. The next Kermit Gosnell might as well set up shop in Texas - or somewhere. Responsible lawmakers are helpless to stop him.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored