Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

news.yahoo.com/fed-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional-190525066.html

Sigh :(.

Please pray that the 5th Circuit overturns this decision…

This decision won’t save the multiple Planned Parenthood clinics that have closed since the law was passed.

I have read that whatever the judge decided, this will be going to the 5th circuit.

Opponents have not challenged that part of the law which prohibits the killing of unborn children who have reached the developmental milestone of being able to feel pain which substantial medical evidence places at 20 weeks, if not earlier. The Abortion Establishment, in Texas and without, is very cautious about taking on a law that clearly demonstrates that the pain-capable unborn child is a living member of the human family worthy of protection.

Nor are they challenging the requirement that all abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical centers, noting that this portion of the law does not go into effect until September 2014.

lifenews.com/2013/10/23/planned-parenthood-fights-texas-for-the-right-to-put-womens-health-at-risk

Lifenews.com put up an article today which refers to one of the plantiffs on the lawsuit, Whole Woman’s Health. Multiple Whole Woman’s Health clinics have been violating safety laws

Texas Abortion Chain Running Filthy Clinics: Rusty Blood Stains on Suction Machines

It’s just sad to see “liberal” judges think that giving women a right to hospitals and information about abortificents is “unconstitutional”

It just really sad

The law wasn’t about “information”. The law was clearly designed to limit access.

As if limiting access to abortion is a bad thing?

liveactionnews.org/understanding-the-abortion-industrys-challenge-to-texas-pro-life-law

In the lawsuit filed last week, Planned Parenthood claims that one third of the abortion providers in Texas would be forced to close because of these two regulations, though they never actually show how they reached that estimate. Only the admitting privileges requirement should have an effect on the operation of these abortion clinics, as the RU 486 regulation only affects how it is administered, and doesn’t ban the practice altogether.

After falling back on tired and disproven claims like “abortion is safer than childbirth”, Planned Parenthood attacks Texas’ decision to require clinics to follow the FDA approved regimen for use of the dangerous RU 486 drug. Currently the FDA regulations dictate that the drug is safe for use at the recommended dose up 49 days into a pregnancy, yet many clinics vary the dosage and use the drug two weeks past the FDA approved date. This requirement would also prevent clinic staffers who are not doctors from administering the drug, and would require the patient to return to the clinic for the second dose of the drug instead of taking it without any supervision at their home. Finally, it would require a flow-up appointment to assure that termination was completed, and that no part of the aborted child remains in the womb (this can lead to dangerous complications and even death.)

Planned Parenthood is hinging its argument against the RU 486 regulations on the idea that they are medically unnecessary, and cite a few organizations (including one outside the US) who agree. But as Justice Kennedy pointed out in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, “Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts.”

The Supreme Court also noted in Planned Parenthood v Casey, that “not all burdens on the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue”, and acknowledged that a state’s interests in protecting unborn life, in preserving the integrity of the medical profession, preventing the coarsening of society’s moral sense, and promoting respect for human life more generally, are strong enough to warrant restrictions prior to viability that make abortion more difficult or expensive to obtain.

At the trial level, both sides will present medical evidence in regards to this issue, but it is in keeping with precedent for the courts to defer to the Texas Legislature’s medical regulations on the administration of the RU 486 abortion drug, despite some doctors disagreeing with the judgment. Additionally, as there are alternative abortion methods available, the undue burden argument is hard to support. However, Planned Parenthood challenges this by contradicting their multiple claims regarding the safety of abortion, saying that it could significantly endanger a woman’s life to have to use an alternate method of abortion.

The second regulation deals with requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Planned Parenthood makes two allegations in regards to this requirement: 1) that it places an undue burden on women seeking abortion, due to its potential to limit the number of doctors who can perform abortions in Texas, and 2) that the requirement is “unconstitutionally vague” because, apparently, Planned Parenthood doesn’t know what the word “active” means in the context of “active admitting privileges.”

Now the first allegation is based on their previous claim that this would force one-third of Texas’ abortion clinics to close, which again, is not supported by the factual statements contained in the lawsuit. In fact, Planned Parenthood admits that some of their providers have already been able to secure admitting privileges, and many are still waiting to hear back from hospitals.

Additionally, this whole argument is based on Planned Parenthood’s opinion that the criteria Texas’ hospitals use when deciding whether to grant admitting privileges, is “unrelated to a physician’s ability to provide high-quality abortion care.” But some of those criteria include things like board certifications, malpractice history and reported complications, level of experience and expertise, and validation of educational credentials- how are these issues not relevant to the quality of care a woman receives in these clinics? The country recently saw the reality of what takes place in abortion clinics when checks and balances, with the horrifying Gosnell trial. There is no doubt in the minds of many people that a regulation like this one would have exposed Kermit Gosnell as the murderous man he really was – but instead he was able to escape notice due to a lack of enforced regulations.

Since Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme Court has stated multiple times that a State has a compelling interest in the safety of the mother who is undergoing an abortion, in the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession, and in recognizing the dignity of human life. Additionally, since Casey the swing vote on abortion – Justice Kennedy, has not voted against any regulations on abortion that has been proposed. Therefore, there is precedent for being permissive in relation to abortion regulations. For these reasons I believe it is likely that the Texas regulations will be upheld.

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.:confused:

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.:eek:

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.:shrug:

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.:frowning:

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.:confused::confused:

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s desicion doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requyirements were challenged.:rolleyes:

Mainstream media coverage of the Judge’s decision doesn’t seem to be making clear that neither the 20 weeks ban or ambulatory surgical centers requirements were challenged or of what was challenged wasn’t all ruled unconstitutional, the FDA regulations can be enforced except for life or health of mother.

Then be up front about the intentions of the law. The other poster wasn’t.

Ban on abortion after 20 weeks in Texas goes into effect at 12:00am

GOV. PERRY ON ABORTION LAW RULING: ‘We will continue fighting’

POSTED: Monday, October 28, 2013 - 4:08pm
UPDATED: Monday, October 28, 2013 - 5:10pm
AUSTIN, TEXAS (KETK) — Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement in response to the Planned Parenthood v. Abbott et al. ruling:

“Today’s decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren’t exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently. We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly-elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans.”

Ted Cruz says Texas Pro-Life law constitutional, should be upheld on appeal

by TEXAS RIGHT TO LIFEMONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released the following statement in reaction to a federal judge’s decision to block part of a recently signed Texas law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals:

I hope the Fifth Circuit will uphold Texas’ reasonable law protecting the health of Texas women and unborn children.

Texas passed commonsense legislation to protect the health of women and their unborn children.

This law is constitutional and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting the life and health of the mother and child.

I hope the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold Texas’ reasonable law.

Texas AG Greg Abbott says he seeing abortion case going to US Supreme Court

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
First Posted: October 28, 2013 - 4:27 pm
Last Updated: October 28, 2013 - 4:30 pm

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says he sees the lawsuit over the state’s new abortion law going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abbott spoke to reporters in Brownsville on Monday shortly after a federal judge ruled two provisions of the law at least partially unconstitutional.

Judge Lee Yeakel threw out a law that says abortion doctors must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. He allowed the state to regulate how an abortion-inducing drug is used, except in cases where the doctor believes off-label use is called for.

Abbott said his office will appeal Yeakel’s decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Abbott was campaigning Monday for governor. His likely Democratic opponent gained national attention for filibustering the abortion law.

Ban on abortion after 20 weeks in Texas, that Wendy Davies fillibustered, goes into effect at 12:00am

How regressive. So sad. :-/

And this is the main thing. Also remaining is the provision that abortion “clinics” meet standards for outpatient centers.

The two provisions that were struck down were not the main parts of the law.

PP and its ilk shouldn’t rejoice too much about the hospital privileges provision being struck. That provision only affected the sleeziest of the “doctors” who respectable hospitals did not want to be associated with. Yeah, PP, go brag about how you hire doctors no one else wants :rolleyes:

The other provision that was struck down is also not necessarily a win for PP. My understanding of off-label use of drugs, including the abortion drugs in question, is that using drugs this way leaves the doctor and “clinic” liable if anything goes wrong. Malpractice insurance protection does not usually cover such things. And there have been many tragic cases of these drugs having horrible consequences and even killing some poor women.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The law had three main approaches. 1) to enforce the informed consent standard that is required of virtually all other medical procedures 2) to enforce basic health and safety standards in abortion centers in the same way they are enforced in other medical centers and 3) to reduce the number of abortions overall - especially late term abortions. Yes, #3 includes limiting access.

It’s like cigarettes. They are legal but bad for you. There have been more and more restrictions placed on them - warning labels, ID checks, limiting locals where they can be sold, lots and lots of taxes. Does this limit access? Of course it does. Does it have the goal of making smoking unappealing? Of course it does. Is that ultimately a good thing? Yes. And so is limiting access to abortion.

Don’t forget the pro-choice mantra was, until very recently that they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”. The Texas law was legislation that aimed to fulfill that goal to a “t”.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.