Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Judge Rejects Key Parts of Texas Abortion Law

Judge Rejects Key Parts of Texas Abortion Law

Abortion clinics in Texas have received a stay … at least for now.

U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled today that portions of Texas’ 2013 abortion law are unconstitutional. “HB 2,” which passed during the last legislative session in spite of the efforts of now-gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (D-10), drew the ire of women’s rights activists and abortion providers for its imposition of higher standards on clinics who provide abortion services.

The Opinion is embedded at the bottom of this post.

Via the Houston Chronicle:

“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, blocking enforcement of the requirement scheduled to take effect Monday.

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.

He described the law, called House Bill 2, as “a brutally effective system of abortion regulation that reduces access to abortion clinics, thereby creating a statewide burden for substantial numbers of Texas women.” Already, a couple dozen clinics have closed since its enactment.

From the opinion:

Having carefully considered the parties’ briefing, stipulations, exhibits, trial testimony, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the court concludes: (1) the act’s admitting privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus, and (2) the act’s provisions that place restrictions on medication.

According to a spokesman from the Texas Attorney General’s office, the state will seek immediate relief from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The law was set to go into effect starting Monday.

You can read the opinion here.

Texas Abortion Law Decision – Planned Parenthood v Abbott

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This ruling reads like used car salesman BS

Because why in the world would a physician who does internal surgery on young pregnant women need to have admitting privileges at a hospital in case something goes horribly wrong.
/bitter sarc

Much like other states who have higher clinical sanitation rules for hair braiders and ear piercing than abortion clinics.

There is no controversy that human life evolves from conception to a natural or artificial death. Elective abortion is premeditated murder of a wholly innocent human life. Since abortion is anthropogenic termination of human life, it should be subject to the same laws as other commissions of murder, whether in the first-person or delegated to an executioner (i.e. abortionist). A woman has the same right as a man to commit murder, which is only in self-defense. That’s it. Women do not enjoy an extra-legal or moral right to terminate human evolution prematurely. Pro-choice is a degenerate doctrine justified by a degenerate faith.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | August 29, 2014 at 9:53 pm

    If women ruled the world… Yeah, right. They can be just as ambitious, arrogant, and degenerate as men. And with “pro-choice”, they commit a genocide-scale (i.e. millions of human lives) violation of human rights. A number of human lives prematurely terminated which is rarely matched in a war.

    Make life, not abortion/murder.

    creeper in reply to n.n. | August 30, 2014 at 7:19 am

    This is gross assumption on your part. The key word in your post is “evolves”. I think there is still much question as to when a blastocyst becomes a human.

    That having been said, it’s simple common sense that any provider needs admitting privileges at a hospital. I can’t believe this is even in question.

    ConradCA in reply to n.n. | August 31, 2014 at 3:27 am

    You wouldn’t want to inconvenience women by forcing them to give birth so you let them murder the baby. Even though giving birth is a very safe procedure.

“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,”

The only way this makes sense is if abortion is so very important that it has to be easy to get, or something horrible will happen.

Or, the judge ruled the way the judge wanted to rule and the “reasoning” came after. But no judge would ever do anything that dishonest, right?

Aside the occasional rare and isolated tragedy in which a woman somewhere else in the world dies because of inability to get an abortion to save her life, where are the big numbers of American women coming forward to say that their lives have been ruined because they weren’t able to get an abortion? It takes a mere few hours to drive clear across the State of Texas.

    Janitor, you’re incorrect. Driving across Texas can take most of a day. It is not a small state. East-West is about 700 mile across and North-South is about the same. A “few hours” would get you from one side of Dallas to the other side of Ft. Worth.

    Back on topic, I’m saddened that sort of law is being challenged. I can understand that it has negative consequences for the clinics, but we really aren’t sure how many clinics out there are like the one run by Kermit Gosnell. Having rules in place, like requiring admitting privileges and regular inspections would prevent grotesque tragedies like the Gosnell clinic from happening.

    creeper in reply to janitor. | August 30, 2014 at 7:24 am

    Obviously you have never driven across Texas. It is further from El Paso, Texas to Texarkana (812 miles) than it is from Texarkana to Chicago (793 miles). I defy you to drive eight hundred twelve miles in a “mere few hours”.

So Judge Lee Yeakel is in favor of putting politics ahead of women’s health.

We already know these “clinics”, like those run by Planned Parenthood put money ahead of women’s health.

This is infuriating for someone who supports first-trimester terminations. What good does it do to allow a woman a choice if the choice is between risking her own health and having a child?

An abortion clinic is a medical facility, performing medical procedures. The concept that it does not need a safety net for its patients when something goes wrong is outrageous.

A woman having a D&C for cancer diagnosis has to go to a hospital or outpatient surgical clinic for a safe procedure. But a woman who wants to have her baby killed should be able to have it done in a place with lower sanitary and safety standards?

    Sorta like the old back alley

      Ragspierre in reply to MarkS. | August 30, 2014 at 9:57 am

      Except nobody ever got an illicit abortion with the expectation they were receiving a medical standard of care.

      Every woman who went to Dr. Gosnell DID expect that. And he’s not really an outlier in terms of common practice at these abattoirs.

    I had a D&C back in 1985 after a miscarriage – as far as I know, that’s still standard procedure. It was performed as an outpatient procedure in the hospital, with all of the protocols that a minor surgery like that entails.

    If an abortion clinic is performing SURGICAL abortions – which are at least as invasive as a D&C – then they should be required to meet the same standards as an ambulatory surgical center.

Taking penicillin is more dangerous than abortion, 2 deaths in 100,000 compared to 0.7 deaths in 100,000.

In addition, admitting privileges has little to do with emergency care. In the rare event of a medical emergency due to an abortion procedure, the woman will typically be transported to the nearest hospital with the appropriate level of care regardless of where the doctor may have admitting privileges.

This is an obvious attempt to minimize access to abortion.

janitor: It takes a mere few hours to drive clear across the State of Texas.

There’s also a 24 hour waiting period in Texas. That means one day of travel, cost of staying overnight, another day of travel back. That’s at two days lost wages, accommodations, auto expense, and the cost of the abortion. That’s assuming she can work immediately after all that.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | August 30, 2014 at 11:24 am

    Or…about the same as having a badly impacted wisdom tooth extracted.

    “In the rare event of a medical emergency due to an abortion procedure, the woman will typically be transported to the nearest hospital with the appropriate level of care regardless of where the doctor may have admitting privileges.”

    Or exactly the same process as a “back alley” abortionist would follow.

    Right?

    But I’m sure you’re fine with a “waiting period” for someone to get a gun, right?

    Sauce for the goose….

    And just so we’re clear, you are aware that this legislation applies to SURGICAL abortions – those which take place after 12/13 weeks’ gestation.

    In those cases, a woman has to wait 24 hours just for the laminaria to soften her cervix enough for it to be able to open so that a doctor can get surgical instruments into the womb – the fetus is too large to be suctioned out at that point, and ALL matter must be removed in order to prevent infection or complications (such as future sterility).

    The doctor has to reach in and twist off both legs and both arms, then remove the torso from the head, then – because the head is too large to remove through the opening – the skull must be crushed and all of the brain matter extracted before the skull can be removed.

    All of the parts have to be “reassembled” in order to ensure that nothing has been left behind.

    Do you think that something like this should be performed in anything LESS than a surgical outpatient center? Would you have a woman undergo a procedure like that in a facility that currently is NOT required by law to meet the bare minimum of standards for a center which performs other “minor” surgeries?

    Those standards are in place for the protection of the PATIENT.

    Are you saying you don’t think that a woman undergoing a surgical abortion should have the assurance that her procedure will be performed in a facility which meets industry standards?

    If so, then I guess you aren’t really all that worried about surgical abortion being a “safe” procedure after all.

    Stats on deaths due to abortions are either unavailable or unreliable … the people reporting them have all sorts of reasons to attribute the deaths to factors that never mention abortion — like sepsis.

    All medical procedures, even minor ones, carry risk.

    See: Joan Rivers in a coma following cardiac arrest during endoscopy …

    This is politics and money over women’s health. So what if a few women needlessly die? The greater good of the Left is served.

    (and I say this as a reluctant pro-choice who believes that abortions up to 12 weeks for adult, single women of sound mind should be not be illegal)

      darleenclick: All medical procedures, even minor ones, carry risk.

      Sure they do. However, the medical risk of most abortions is very low.

      We’re sure you will put forth all your efforts, though, to make sure abortion clinics in Texas are provided admitting privileges without harassment.

        ConradCA in reply to Zachriel. | August 31, 2014 at 3:24 am

        Tell that to the women treated at Gosnell’s clinic.

        It’s not the “clinic” which has admitting privileges; rather, it is the person performing the abortion who must meet a hospital’s standards for admitting privileges.

        If a medical professional can’t meet those standards, I would think you wouldn’t want them anywhere near ANY patient when it comes to surgical procedures.

        That’s just me, though.

        And here in Texas, there are still 6 abortion facilities which meet ALL of the standards called for in the legislation, so your argument is invalid.

        As large as this state is, the majority of people live within driving distance of any of these facilities – if they want an abortion that badly, they will find a way to get to a facility.

        And if they can’t get to one, I am sure that the people who are pro-abortion would be more than happy to take time out of their busy day to help them out.

        After all, they keep telling us they are the “caring” ones, right?

          teresainfortworth: If a medical professional can’t meet those standards, I would think you wouldn’t want them anywhere near ANY patient when it comes to surgical procedures.

          As we have pointed out, other medical specialties do not require admitting privileges in order to perform low-risk procedures. Prescribing penicillin is more dangerous than abortion.

          teresainfortworth: As large as this state is, the majority of people live within driving distance of any of these facilities – if they want an abortion that badly, they will find a way to get to a facility.

          There’s also a 24 hour waiting period in Texas. That means one day of travel, cost of staying overnight, another day of travel back. That’s at two days lost wages, accommodations, auto expense, and the cost of the abortion. That’s assuming she can work immediately after all that.

          Admit it. You want to make abortion as difficult as possible.

Ragspierre: Or…about the same as having a badly impacted wisdom tooth extracted.

Which is why most states, including Texas, don’t require admitting privileges for dentists. They don’t have a sufficient volume of referrals.

Ragspierre: Or exactly the same process as a “back alley” abortionist would follow.

Or your dentist, as you just pointed out.

teresainfortworth: Those standards are in place for the protection of the PATIENT.

Sure they are {wink, wink}. Which is why the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that there is no medical justification for admitting privilege requirements.

    Which is why the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that there is no medical justification for admitting privilege requirements.

    Yeah, that group isn’t political or anything … just like the rah-rah-ObamaCare AMA.

    [rolls eyes]

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | August 30, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Oral surgeons are not “dentists”, ya moron.

      Ragspierre: Oral surgeons are not “dentists”, ya moron.

      That is incorrect. Oral surgeons are dentists.
      http://www.webmd.com/hw-popup/oral-surgeon-maxillofacial-surgeon

        BTW, maybe Texas doesn’t need a law to require Oral Surgeons to have hospital admitting privileges because hospital admitting privileges are already a REQUIREMENT of being board-certified throughout the United States

        https://www.aboms.org/PublicPages/CertificationMaintenance/FAQ.aspx

        Q: What is needed to fulfill the Professional Standing requirement?

        A: To fulfill the Professional Standing requirement, a Diplomate must meet two requirements: (1) The Diplomate must show possession of a current unrestricted medical or dental license, and (2) current hospital privileges allowing patient admission and the performance of core procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Evidence of both of these requirements is reported through Annual Registration in every year of the 10 year Certification Maintenance cycle.

          darleenclick: Oral Surgeons to have hospital admitting privileges because hospital admitting privileges are already a REQUIREMENT of being board-certified throughout the United States

          The original contention was concerning wisdom tooth extraction, which is often done by a general dentist. Higher risk procedures require more strenuous procedures.

          American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: opposes facility regulations that are more stringent for abortion than for other surgical procedures of similar low risk.

          Do you see the difference?

          Ragspierre in reply to darleenclick. | August 31, 2014 at 7:35 pm

          No, you lying SOS. The ORIGINAL contention was that the costs and impositions were roughly equivalent for a women seeking extraction of a BADLY IMPACTED WISDOM TOOTH.

          You sought to change the formulation for your own lying ends.

          You will note that it didn’t work. Liar.

          Ragspierre: The ORIGINAL contention was that the costs and impositions were roughly equivalent for a women seeking extraction of a BADLY IMPACTED WISDOM TOOTH.

          Which can still be done by dentists in many cases, though they often refer it out. Similarly, most abortions are simple, don’t always require surgery; but there are more complex cases, such as ectopic pregnancies. Certainly, nNot all abortions should be done on an outpatient basis. We presume you would support having hospital facilities available for these situations.

          The death rate from abortion is about 0.7 per 100,000 — less than for prescribing penicillin. If you want to make an argument, you might want to compare the rates of injury for each procedure.

          Ragspierre in reply to darleenclick. | September 1, 2014 at 10:37 am

          As you have proven so commonly in the past, you are just a liar.

          For instance, you are plying an abortion mortality stat that includes all abortions…not the abortions contemplated under this bill.

          You DO represent your Collective well, though. Typical liar.

          Ragspierre: you are plying an abortion mortality stat that includes all abortions…not the abortions contemplated under this bill.

          That is incorrect. The new law applies to abortion clinics even when they only perform first trimeters abortions, or use non-surgical means.

          We presume you would support having hospital facilities available for more complex situations.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | August 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm

        In the same way a Supreme Court Justice is a “lawyer”.

        What a dishonest puke.

      In any case, that’s not relevant to your previous comment, “Or…about the same as having a badly impacted wisdom tooth extracted.” Dentists often remove impacted wisdom teeth.
      http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/wisdom-tooth-extraction

    retire05 in reply to Zachriel. | August 31, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    Actually, Zachriel, an oral surgeon, who generally removes severely impacted wisdom teeth, are required to have hospital privileges in Texas.

    You see, “impacted” means infected, and it is highly dangerous to remove any impacted wisdom tooth as can allow for the infection to enter the blood stream.

    But since you are so worried that women won’t be able to kill their babies in Texas, why don’t you start a free service to take them to the abortion mill that doesn’t even meet basic sanitary conditions and pay for their overnight stay?

      retire05: an oral surgeon, who generally removes severely impacted wisdom teeth, are required to have hospital privileges in Texas.

      “An oral and maxillofacial surgeon or your dentist can remove (extract) a wisdom tooth. The procedure often can be done in the dentist’s or surgeon’s office.”

      retire05: You see, “impacted” means infected, and it is highly dangerous to remove any impacted wisdom tooth as can allow for the infection to enter the blood stream.

      Impacted means it hasn’t broken through the gum.

      “If you have any infections, surgery will usually be delayed until the infection has cleared up.”
      http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/wisdom-tooth-extraction

      http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/wisdom-tooth-extraction

darleenclick: Yeah, that group isn’t political or anything

The opinion of a professional medical association as opposed to what? You didn’t provide any evidence that indicates they are wrong on their medical opinion.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | August 30, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    And you didn’t provide any evidence that is NOT a political position more than a “medical opinion”.

    Did “we”?

    Zachriel, I’m not the one marching forth with the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

    Nice try. We have some lovely parting gifts for you …

      darleenclick: I’m not the one marching forth with the Appeal to Authority fallacy

      It’s a valid appeal to authority and that is generally more persuasive than bald assertion.

        SmokeVanThorn in reply to Zachriel. | August 31, 2014 at 3:56 pm

        “It’s a valid appeal to authority . . ..”

        Ye gods, the stupidity burns.

          SmokeVanThorn: Ye gods

          An appeal to authority is valid inductive argument when

          * The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
          * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
          * The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
          * There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
          * There is no evidence of undue bias.

          The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

          For instance, if you visit several oncologists, and they agree you have cancer, then you should probably consider appropriate action based on that expert opinion.

This whole “pre-viability” argument is bonkers.

A newborn infant is unable to survive on its own without caregivers. Technically, that is not a viable organism. There are also many sick and dying people who would die without intervening medical treatment and care. They are also non-viable organisms. If you abandon an infant to die you are charged with a crime. If you allow someone to die in a hospital you can be charged with negligence. When someone dies without medical care, were they not alive at the time since they have lost their viability?

Connivin Caniff | August 30, 2014 at 5:42 pm

Am I biased in thinking that when liberals challenge a statute, and prevail at some pointin the trial court, they generally are awarded a stay of the enforcement of the statute, while when conservatives challenge a statute and prevail at some point in the trial court, the statute is permitted to stay in effect pending appeal? Further, would it be constitutional for Congress to forbid inferior courts from entering stays in certain classes of cases?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Leroy_Yeakel_III

nominated by George W Bush.

Thanks a lot, Dubyah, you piece of dried poop.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to [email protected]. | August 31, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    And Hizzoner has been down this road before. From the wikipedia entry:

    “On October 28, 2013, Yeakel ruled that abortion restrictions enacted by the state of Texas were unconstitutional.[1] Yeakel wrote: “The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman’s health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her.”[2] Three days later, Yeakel’s order was mostly overturned by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.[3][4] The part of the law requiring doctors in abortion facilities have admitting privileges at local hospitals was unanimously reinstated by the panel.[3][4] Only one part of Yeakel’s order remained and that part was where the order prevents the state from enforcing the FDA protocol for abortion-inducing drugs in cases where the woman is between 50 and 63 days into her pregnancy.[3][4]

    On August 29, 2014, in response to a second lawsuit, Judge Yeakel ruled again that abortion restrictions in Texas H. B. 2 imposed an “undue burden” upon women seeking pre-viability abortions and upon abortion providers, and declared several provisions of the law unconstitutional.[5] The State of Texas is appealing Judge Yeakel’s ruling, again seeking relief from the Fifth Circuit.”

Doesn’t Texas have the right to regulate medical procedures? With the conviction of that butcher Gosnell it only makes sense for them to improve regulations.

The judge just can’t throw out the law because it makes things more difficult for those providing or seeking abortions. The doctors can just conform to the laws requirements.

If the judge can do these then why can’t other judges do this with California’s insane gun laws that are designed to prevent people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend