Supreme Court Will Hear Louisiana Abortion Law That Requires Clinics to Have Hospital Admitting Privileges
Why do abortion activists want to challenge a law that takes steps to protect a woman’s health in case something goes wrong?
Abortion activists want abortion viewed as a medical procedure, which it is, but provide it with special exceptions.
The case June Medical Services v. Gee proves this point, which challenges a Louisiana law that requires abortion centers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case months after the justices “blocked enforcement of the law.”
This case mirrors the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. That case challenged a Texas law requiring admitting privileges, which inspired Louisiana to pass its own law.
The justices ruled the law placed an “undue burden” on those who sought abortions.
The Supreme Court has a different makeup now from 2016. While the justices stopped enforcement of the law in February it also provided a sign they would pick up the case again.
Abortion activists do not like Louisiana law because it will cause two of the three centers in the state to close.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent that plaintiffs “could bring a challenge to the law if the doctors were unable to obtain admitting privileges” if they did not obtain the “admitting privileges during a 45-day regulatory transition period.”
Pro-life organizations applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling to hear the case.
“Abortion activists are more than willing to lower the bar on women’s health in order to expand abortion, but stricter clinic regulations are in the best interest of women,” said March for Life President Jeanne Mancini. “Just recently we were reminded of the need for more oversight when it comes to abortion, not less, with the appalling case of the abortionist Ulrich Klopfer who collected thousands of aborted babies’ bodies in his home. We applaud the Louisiana bill’s sponsor Katrina Jackson as well as its other supporters for taking concrete steps to protect women in that state.”
Here is my question. Birthing centers require admitting privileges. Some plastic surgeon centers have the requirement along with surgery centers.
Why should abortion centers have special exceptions?
As a former pro-abortion person I can tell you why. Keeping abortion as secret as possible hides the horror of the procedure that leads to the death of an unborn human being.
A woman’s access to the procedure takes precedence over their health. Even in the cleanest and most up to date clinics, something could go wrong.
Abortion activists have more concern for access and the ability to perform abortions more than women’s health. Their opposition to take steps to make sure a woman’s life is not in danger (ironically, that’s one of their defenses to keep abortion legal) proves it’s all about the procedure more than anything else.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Because Satan’s disciples.
I want the court’s decision on abortion mills that have “Drive-Through Windows!”
According to CDC, in 2012 there were 699,802 abortions in legal clinics. There were FOUR deaths. A man or woman is more likely to die in a DENTISTS CHAIR than from an abortion. Now I know a lot of bible thumpers think it is some how their business how other people live their lives. Well, bring your constitutional amendment or move someplace that shares your ideals. Iran or Saudi Arabia come to mind. But don’t promote some BS about “women’s health” with this end run around the right to an abortion.
Do you know why they can’t get REAL doctors to work in abortion clinics? Because it is horrible. They want nothing of the horror of killing a live baby. I have a friend who is a female physician who did one abortion during training. She’s as progressive and far left as they come. She said it was absolutely horrible.
So here you are…Madame Virtuous, advocating for abortion but happy to keep it as dirty and as unsanitary as possible. It’s very profitable for corporations and politicians. It’s not just 4 deaths. Countless women become sterile or have other complications due to improper care in filthy unsanitary clinics.
Satan disciple in the flesh.
5-4 with roberts voting with the lib to make the 5th.
I don’t see how having to drive a few more hours (or on a bus) is some kind of “undue burden”. There is a map at Gutmacher, and in some of the very rural areas around South Dakota, the nearest clinic is hundreds of miles away, but so is the nearest McDonalds.
Strangely, when someone put together an Ultrasound on a truck to create a mobile crisis pregnancy center that all it did was ultrasound the pro-aborts got it shut down for being a “medical clinic” and not having the proper whatevers.
The Clinic can be a rusty coat-hanger in a pig sty, and the pro-Aborts will defend it.
The Admitting Privileges and similar (e.g. having a contract with the nearest ER) create a problem because they can’t use walking malpractice cases to preform Abortions, they have to find good doctors and few doctors want to perform abortions. Even with Planned Parenthood, they can’t afford real doctors. Or ultrasound machines so they can watch the dismemberment.
It also seems that the lack of admitting privileges allows any complications from the procedure to be disconnected from the abortion and clinic for statistical analysis – it would be considered an ER visit, for example, further hiding the risks of abortion due to lack of data related to it.
That is an excellent point!
Because anything less than a drive thru abortion clinic hooked up to a fast food joint is “oppressing a woman’s right to choose”
I am curious. How many abortion procedures end up requiring the patients to be transferred to an ER? How common are such complications? Closing down two out a state’s three abortion clinics does seem to be a burden on a woman’s right to chose.
I certainly understand the position that abortion is murder, and that a woman should not have the right to murder her baby. But the present law gives a woman the right to chose in many circumstances.
Geologist, and I’m wondering how big a part abortions play in driving up the mortality rate for child birth in this nation.
Supposedly the U.S. is now about the highest for mother mortality in child birth in the developed nations.
CDC says about 700 women die in childbirth. So it’s about 200 TIMES more dangerous to have a baby than an abortion.
Not for the baby.
well duh. Millions more deliver their babies than abort them. moron.
That’s why the Founding Fathers came up with states. If it bothers some people, leave the state. Or better yet, build a better facility.
If this wasn’t about abortion and required any other measure to prevent/treat even a small health incident, then no one would bat an eye. In fact, it would be lauded for improving health care standards.
Babies blood is the sacrament of the religion of the left.
My first thought was that must be an old picture..
regardless of whether you individually approve of the procedure or not, abortions have been performed for millenia
if they cannot be stopped, which is frankly impossible, what is the harm in attempting to make those who perform them at least be qualified/approved by a hospital/ER? at least then those who request/require them will be assisted by someone qualified to perform them
probably the most difficult decision a woman has to make in this life–is it also necessary for her to face a potentially lethal procedure for herself because we lack the will to insist that those performing the same meet at least the minimum medical qualifications for delivering the service?
Since the widespread introduction of the “Morning After Pill” I can see no rational reason for abortion except in saving the mother’s life if the family decides upon that in such sad circumstances.
Why isn’t Planned Parenthood putting all their resources into wide-spread distribution of the Morning After Pills?
Oh yeah, dead baby parts EQUALS High Profits!!!!!!!
What is the claim here? That if a clinic lacks admitting privileges, its patients will be denied any subsequent medical care?
Hardly. “Admitting privileges” just mean that a physician can admit a patient to a particular hospital. This can get complicated in cases where a patient has some sort of “in-network” insurance, but that’s about insurance, not medicine. Aside from insurance, a doctor’s lack of “admitting privileges” has little to do with the patient’s hospital care. The last time I was admitted to a hospital I staggered into the emergency room under my own power (and no, it was for tachycardia; no abortion was involved). Nobody gave me a hard time about anybody’s “admitting privileges,” either then or later.
All I can see here is a harassment tactic, the state imposing arbitrary and essentially irrelevant requirements to make things artificially difficult for an abortion clinic to operate. [Note that I am not addressing the issue of abortion, but rather that of arbitrary government.]
So now everything the state does to provide health or safety standards is arbitrary and essentially irrelevant requirements to make things artificially difficult?
So no more standards for restaurants, automobiles, building contractors, dentists… I could go on. Just hang a shingle and you are good to go.
The left seems intent on turning this country into a third world hellhole.