Patty Knap calls herself a “born again” Catholic. She planned to be a wife and mother of four or five kids with several girls, but as life played out, she’s a single mom with two young adult boys. She counsels at a crisis pregnancy center, teaches CCD, takes online classes with the Avila Institute, and loves the beach, dalmatians, and America’s national parks. She also saves recipes in a pile until it gets big and then throws them out.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg just had the audacity to claim—in open defiance of medical fact—that “complications from abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Tell that to the 26,500 women who experienced abortion-related complications in 2011 alone (3,200 of whom required post-abortion hospitalization).
In Monday's Supreme Court decision, Texas pro-life laws were struck down, giving women “access”—pro-choicers’ favorite word—to shoddy care from cold, calculating opportunists. One would think anyone would be in favor of higher medical standards at any medical facility, even for dogs and cats. But for women, for abortion clinics? Abortion advocates are cheering this decision that insists on lower standards of medical care for women seeking abortions.
In Pennsylvania, that “care” was an inner-city torture chamber where “semi-conscious, moaning women sat on bloodstained blankets” in rooms that “reeked of urine.” In Delaware, that “access” means unsterile instruments held by abortionists who don't even wear gloves. These are the third-world conditions the Left fought for—and won—on Monday. This is the “progress” that government-funded groups like Planned Parenthood are high-fiving Hillary Clinton over. These are the back-alley abortions the Court just brought inside facilities across Texas.
As Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) argued, “This should not be a pro-life or pro-choice issue. Women deserve access to safe and sanitary conditions, period.” Now, in toppling H.B. 2, moms may be better off at a Texas veterinary clinic than an abortion center. At least those are regulated. Let's face it, said a frustrated Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the “Supreme Court has left almost no room for common sense and simple decency in our nation's approach to abortion.” Already, one Pennsylvania Democrat is using the Court's decision as an excuse to introduce a repeal of the basic safety standards put in place because of the Gosnell tragedy.
Justice Clarence Thomas notes that there's very little consensus on what impact Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt will have on states' authority. That won't stop abortion advocates from insisting that Monday's decision means all clinics regulations have been overturned. That's simply not true, since the laws are not only written differently, but many go back to the late 1990s when state legislators first started building some accountability into the abortion industry. While the Court may have cast doubts on laws like Louisiana's, it doesn't automatically void them. Thankfully, Monday's opinion has no effect on Texas's 20-week abortion ban.
States have a responsibility to protect women's health. Now with all sorts of confusion because of this disastrous decision, there's bound to be more litigation including more cases before the Supreme Court. Abortion advocates can continue to take this issue to the Supreme Court again, insisting that they believe trained staff, hospital contingency plans, and up-to-date sanitation and fire codes are too excessive for facilities operating on women.
A Knights of Columbus poll earlier this year found that an overwhelming majority of Americans—81 percent—support significant restrictions on abortion. Being “pro-abortion” doesn't necessarily mean you're anti-regulation, unless you're a politician who stands to benefit from the abortion alliance or a clinic more concerned with your profits than your patients. Justice Steven Breyer even went so far as to claim that even Gosnell's barbaric acts don't justify laws like those in Texas.
Gosnell's behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statues and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.
Wow. How ironic, as Carrie Severino of National Review points out. That's the same argument conservatives make about gun control. Yet the liberal justices are so desperate to push their own policy agendas that they'll not only ignore the court's precedent but their own.
Does anyone think that the liberal justices would buy that argument in the context of gun control? 'The Orlando/Sandy hook/Fort Hood/etc. shooter's behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.' And (as Thomas's dissent notes), the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, rather than emanating from some penumbra.
This latest Supreme Court decision wasn't even taking into consideration the underlying fact of the humanity of the unborn child. This case was merely about safety regulations. And even the safety regulations were struck down. What remains is the critical nature of this year's presidential election and the need to pray for God's hand in it.