"SCOTUS CHOOSES RISKIER BUSINESS ON ABORTION" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 27, 2016;http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F40&f=WU16F14 [AS I SEE IT: This will truly go down as one of the saddest days in our nation's history but I hope it will waken people to how critical it is that we have a President and a Senate who will confirm only justices who will allow States the right to decide how best to protect their citizens - in this case the mothers of the unborn as well as the unborn themselves. If there is an upside to this tragic decision, may it be the election of those kind of leaders this fall. If not, we must be ready for even more egregious decisions in the future. - Stan]
It's a surreal day in America when hundreds of young women stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court and cheer a decision that subjects them to dirty and dangerous abortion chambers like Kermit Gosnell's. Yet that's exactly what happened this morning when five unelected justices decided to topple a law enacted by the leaders of Texas, which required that abortionists offer such "controversial" things as trained staff, up-to-date sanitation codes, or hallways wide enough to accommodate gurneys.
It was the first abortion case decided by the Supreme Court in eight years -- and it was a major blow to women's health. With help from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the majority sent Texas -- and every other state -- back to the dark ages of health care, where abortionists can continue cutting corners on basic safety to save a buck.
And in one of the saddest ironies of our time, feminists celebrated. Now, instead of giving women protection from profit-first abortionists, the Court is subjecting mothers to clinics with looser regulations than a public pool. All Texas leaders asked in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt is that the women who choose abortion have the safest and best care possible. That includes bringing these facilities up to the same standards as surgical facilities, as well as requiring doctors who perform abortions to be able to admit patients to hospitals in the event of a complication -- which 26,500 women experienced in 2011 alone (3,200 required hospitalization).
But instead of embracing these upgrades, the abortion industry fought them -- letting slip the mask on how much they truly care about women. Even Roe v. Wade acknowledged that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion... is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient."
Unfortunately, the Court has decided that safety puts an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortion. In particular, the Left argued, Texas's H.B. 2 would have put several of the state's abortion centers out of business. But that's not the fault of the law. That's the fault of money-grubbing abortionists who'd rather put profits in their pockets and not in renovations that could be the difference between life or death for the women who enter the facility. Every abortion facility in Texas had the opportunity to upgrade their standards. The fact that so few were willing to says more about the industry than it does about the constitutionality of the Lone Star's law.
Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts alluded to that in their joint dissent, pointing out that "at least nine Texas clinics may have ceased performing abortions (or reduced capacity) for one or more of the reasons having nothing to do with provisions challenged here." But, Justice Alito went on, "When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues, we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner. The Court has not done that here." A frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas called out the Court's uneven interpretation of the law. "...[T]he majority applies the undue burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come... And the majority seriously burdens states, which must guess at how much more compelling their interests must be to pass muster and what 'commonsense inferences' of an undue burden this court will identify next."
In a nod to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, he quoted from the man whose absence on this case was so keenly felt, arguing that this outcome "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Hair and nail salons, tanning centers, and restaurants all have to meet basic health standards. Shouldn't abortion facilities? As a disappointed Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-Texas) said today in a statement, "H.B. 2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives."
As they've done with Obamacare, marriage, and abortion, five unelected people are making it impossible for elected leaders to run their states the way they and voters see fit. And in the process, they're putting millions of lives at risk. If anyone needed more proof about the importance of this year's election, this is it. When the next pro-life case makes its way to the high court, whose Supreme Court justices do you want deciding it? In the meantime, FRC will continue doing what these five judicial activists have not: defending women and children from the predatory abortion industry. Because Texans -- and all Americans -- deserve better.
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clarence Thomas Slams Supreme Court 'Bending the Rules' to Create 'Putative Right to Abortion'" - Steven Ertelt, June 27, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/clarence-thomas-slams-supreme-court-bending-the-rules-to-create-putative-right-to-abortion/
"Clinically Insane: Nation Reacts to Abortion Bombshell" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 28, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F44&f=WU16F15
It's a surreal day in America when hundreds of young women stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court and cheer a decision that subjects them to dirty and dangerous abortion chambers like Kermit Gosnell's. Yet that's exactly what happened this morning when five unelected justices decided to topple a law enacted by the leaders of Texas, which required that abortionists offer such "controversial" things as trained staff, up-to-date sanitation codes, or hallways wide enough to accommodate gurneys.
It was the first abortion case decided by the Supreme Court in eight years -- and it was a major blow to women's health. With help from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the majority sent Texas -- and every other state -- back to the dark ages of health care, where abortionists can continue cutting corners on basic safety to save a buck.
And in one of the saddest ironies of our time, feminists celebrated. Now, instead of giving women protection from profit-first abortionists, the Court is subjecting mothers to clinics with looser regulations than a public pool. All Texas leaders asked in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt is that the women who choose abortion have the safest and best care possible. That includes bringing these facilities up to the same standards as surgical facilities, as well as requiring doctors who perform abortions to be able to admit patients to hospitals in the event of a complication -- which 26,500 women experienced in 2011 alone (3,200 required hospitalization).
But instead of embracing these upgrades, the abortion industry fought them -- letting slip the mask on how much they truly care about women. Even Roe v. Wade acknowledged that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion... is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient."
Unfortunately, the Court has decided that safety puts an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortion. In particular, the Left argued, Texas's H.B. 2 would have put several of the state's abortion centers out of business. But that's not the fault of the law. That's the fault of money-grubbing abortionists who'd rather put profits in their pockets and not in renovations that could be the difference between life or death for the women who enter the facility. Every abortion facility in Texas had the opportunity to upgrade their standards. The fact that so few were willing to says more about the industry than it does about the constitutionality of the Lone Star's law.
Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts alluded to that in their joint dissent, pointing out that "at least nine Texas clinics may have ceased performing abortions (or reduced capacity) for one or more of the reasons having nothing to do with provisions challenged here." But, Justice Alito went on, "When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues, we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner. The Court has not done that here." A frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas called out the Court's uneven interpretation of the law. "...[T]he majority applies the undue burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come... And the majority seriously burdens states, which must guess at how much more compelling their interests must be to pass muster and what 'commonsense inferences' of an undue burden this court will identify next."
In a nod to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, he quoted from the man whose absence on this case was so keenly felt, arguing that this outcome "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Hair and nail salons, tanning centers, and restaurants all have to meet basic health standards. Shouldn't abortion facilities? As a disappointed Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-Texas) said today in a statement, "H.B. 2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives."
As they've done with Obamacare, marriage, and abortion, five unelected people are making it impossible for elected leaders to run their states the way they and voters see fit. And in the process, they're putting millions of lives at risk. If anyone needed more proof about the importance of this year's election, this is it. When the next pro-life case makes its way to the high court, whose Supreme Court justices do you want deciding it? In the meantime, FRC will continue doing what these five judicial activists have not: defending women and children from the predatory abortion industry. Because Texans -- and all Americans -- deserve better.
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clarence Thomas Slams Supreme Court 'Bending the Rules' to Create 'Putative Right to Abortion'" - Steven Ertelt, June 27, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/clarence-thomas-slams-supreme-court-bending-the-rules-to-create-putative-right-to-abortion/
"Clinically Insane: Nation Reacts to Abortion Bombshell" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 28, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F44&f=WU16F15
No comments:
Post a Comment