Fifth Circuit OKs Texas Abortion Law
First the full panel, then on to the Supreme Court?
A three-judge panel has overturned a previous ruling blocking implementation of Texas’ new abortion restrictions.
Last month, the State of Texas appealed a U.S. District Court decision blocking the new restrictions, saying that the court’s application of the “undue burden” standard was improper. The Fifth Circuit panel agreed with the state’s argument, keeping consistent with their own precedent regarding what constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on a woman’s right to seek an abortion.
Predictably, abortion advocates are crying foul. Via USA Today:
“Today’s ruling has gutted Texas women’s constitutional rights and access to critical reproductive health care and stands to make safe, legal abortion essentially disappear overnight,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the group.
…
Among the law’s provisions is the requirement that clinics performing abortion procedures upgrade to certain hospital-type equipment, which Northup’s group calls “a multimillion-dollar tax on abortion services.”
…
“Texas Republicans are forcing women’s health clinics to close,” said Lisa Paul, spokeswoman for the Texas state Democratic Party. “This will not only deny women their right to choose, but also reduces their access to prenatal care, cancer screenings, mammograms, and annual wellness visits.”
Some legal experts are confident that an en banc hearing before the Fifth Circuit will yield a different result, but this argument ignores the Court’s own precedent, which rejects the idea that requiring women to drive further to seek an abortion constitutes a substantial obstacle.
Whether or not the Circuit agrees to re-hear the case, it’s almost certain that Texas’ abortion laws—and those of other states—will soon get their day before the Supreme Court.
You can read the full opinion here:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Texas Republicans are forcing women’s health clinics to close,” said Lisa Paul, spokeswoman for the Texas state Democratic Party. “This will not only deny women their right to choose, but also reduces their access to prenatal care, cancer screenings, mammograms, and annual wellness visits.”
That is, of course, a transparent lie.
Not ONE of those assertions is true. Not ONE.
Seriously, didn’t the morning after pill make this a fight over nothing? If it didn’t it should have.
Rags, I do not know enough about the economics of women’s health clinics to know if these are lies or not.
How much “profit” is generated in a typical clinic from abortions, which “profits” might fund other aspects of the clinic? If a clinic is prevented from performing abortions due to new medical requirements, will the loss of funds “force” the clinic to close down, thereby “reduc[ing] [women’s] access to prenatal care, cancer screenings, mammograms, and annual wellness visits”?
How many “abortion mills” are just abortion clinics, as opposed to “women’s health clinics”? I have never been in an abortion clinic, and I admit my ignorance.
The argument that preventing a clinic from performing abortions might force it to close its doors does not seem implausible to me.
I am not commenting on the balance of good — whether preventing several abortions (or even one) is worth the alleged cutback in the availability of women’s health services. I am just questioning your branding this claim as a “transparent lie.” It ain’t so transparent to me.
All you need to know about profit margins of babykilling factories is that it’s nothing but profit if you don’t have to consult the victim or pay damages for wrongful death.
I want some baby butcher to show me a single case file where an abortion was used to save a mother’s physical life.
Well, here’s the global answer (I don’t know…and won’t research…the “micro answer”)…
IF a “woman’s wellness clinic” is using abortions to subsidize ANY other service, that is a matter of that clinic’s choice. Nothing prevents them from charging the appropriate expense for anything they offer.
The very idea that a clinic would NECESSARILY have to close is simply stupid. Even those clinics that would have to have a physician get their admitting credentials are not “forced to close”. They might have to curtail offering abortions for a time, ASSUMING that the abortionist is not such a quack they cannot be credentialed.
But in NO case can I see any “woman’s clinic” being “forced to close” as a result of this law. Every other mentioned service provided in the quote SHOULD pay for itself. They MAY have to change how they do business, but that is no bad thing.
Funny, I feel the same way about forcing power plants to install unnecessary equipment. I wonder why that isn’t called a tax? /sarc
A very good point. Oh, the hypocrisy.
“Today’s ruling has gutted Texas women’s constitutional rights … ”
I am confused, Texas’ constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion. Maybe I should actually read the damn thing.
It’s probably not in the constitution, but it’s commonly understood by civilized people that self-defense justifies committing abortion. Otherwise, committing or contracting for abortion is generally understood by decent women and men to be a violation of human rights.
Still, it’s not like the sperm mounts a surprise attack and beats the mother into pregnancy. I wonder if this is why they are promoting the “rape culture” narrative. This counter-assault has probably been fermenting in their think tanks for several decades. And who really cares about men’s rights. With the sexual assault narrative in the 80s and 90s, their priorities were unmistakeable. Sacrifices are to be expected in the war on humanity. Either you go along to get along or get thrown under the bus.
speaking of sperm mounting a surprise attack upon the ovum, after he gets in, she defends him from all the other “rape-minded” sperm by instantly erecting an impenetrable cell wall.
Battered ovum syndrome anyone? Does the ovum know she’s a victim?
Oh God my head HURTS!
Even today, the myth of spontaneous conception is widely believed by politicians, judges, experts, and career-minded, pleasure-seeking women to justify premeditated abortion of a wholly innocent but unwanted human life.
1) We don’t need to be near a hospital. Its a simple procedure that can be done in a strip mall office, like with your dentist.
2) Its too onerous for us to relocate near a hospital
Which is it? Can’t be both.
So the physician who conducts internal surgical procedures that have a low but significant chance of fatal consequences for the mother is now held to the same or slightly lower standard as physicians who conduct other kinds of surgery in their offices that have lower chances of significant consequences.
I fail to see the reason for the outrage on the left. That is, if they weren’t such incredible hypocrites. Then it makes perfect sense.
Joan Rivers was unavailable for comment on low risk outpatient surgeries.
Why do liberals hate women so much that they will allow them to have an elective medical procedure in places that are poorly equipped, or not equipped at all, in case of an emergency. Liberals are forcing us back into the medical equivalent of the coat hanger in the dark alley because they do not care about the womans wellbeing.
See “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women” by Katie Pavlich
http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Flattery-Truth-About-Their/dp/1476749604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412441056&sr=8-1&keywords=left%27s+war+on+women