The ink wasn’t even dry on the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upholding the meat of Texas House Bill 2, which requires abortion clinics to meet hospital standards for healthcare facilities, when The New York Times started spinning their story.
A federal appellate court upheld some of the toughest provisions of a Texas abortion law on Tuesday, putting 13 of the state’s abortion clinics at risk of permanently shutting their doors, which would leave the nation’s second-most populous state with eight abortion providers.
Looking at that one sentence: “permanently shutting their doors” indicates that the abortion industry is unwilling to bring their clinics up to hospital standards, as if penetrating a woman’s womb with forceps, removing a living unborn child and killing it is not a medical procedure.
Doctors offices that remove ingrown toenails have to measure up to surgical facility standards, yet somehow abortion clinics want their standards to be more in the category of Hardees or WhatABurger kitchens.
But to the Times, only one side of this story matters.
“Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to devastate access to reproductive health care on such a sweeping scale,” said Nancy Northup, the president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose lawyers were part of the legal team representing the clinics that sued the state. “Once again, women across the state of Texas face the near total elimination of safe and legal options for ending a pregnancy, and the denial of their constitutional rights.”
Since when has abortion become a constitutional right, on par with, say, the Second Amendment (which Texas recently recognized in allowing “open carry”), or the First Amendment? Abortion is legal only because of a “penumbra” of privacy found somewhere lodged in the 14th Amendment between the words “due” and “process.” Furthermore, if a fetus were ever to be defined as a “person,” it too would be protected by the same 14th Amendment.
So personhood is the enemy of the death merchants (another reason why a 20 week abortion ban, even with exceptions for rape and incest, makes sense since it’s moving toward personhood on the spectrum of scientific and medical viability).
In addition to the surgical standards, the court also ruled against clinic owners on another aspect of the law, a requirement that doctors performing abortions obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of a clinic. The court said that except as applied to one doctor working in McAllen in South Texas, the provision did not put an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions.
Two words, “doctors” and “hospital.” Would you go to a surgical facility where the doctor had no admitting privileges at the local hospital, didn’t have to comply with cleanliness and building standards of other surgical facilities, and offered no proof you won’t leave dead?
And the death merchants think that closing abortion clinics will be unsanitary, and push abortions into alleyways. To remain open, all the abortion clinics have to do is recognize that they are performing a surgical service to patients, not flipping burgers for customers. But that’s too much for them, not because of some altruistic love of the Constitution, but because it’s too expensive and they won’t be able to turn as big a profit.
See, if abortions cost what other medical procedures cost, the clinics wouldn’t be able to locate in poor neighborhoods and attract a certain clientele who are more-or-less desperate for options.
The ruling was expected. The Fifth Circuit is regarded by many as one of the most conservative federal appellate courts in the country. Clinic owners and their lawyers said they will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, setting up what could be the first significant test of one of the key legal issues raised by the Texas case — what amounts to an “undue burden” for women seeking abortions. Lawyers for the Texas clinics said about 900,000 reproductive-age women will live more than 150 miles from the nearest open facility in the state when the surgical-center requirement and admitting privileges rule take effect and several clinics close.
Here, NYT bares its naked agenda: abortion is a conservative issue to liberals, and they hope that the Supreme Court will hear the case, so they can trot out all their “deprive women’s health” arguments on a national stage.
The truth is that any woman in Texas is free to obtain an abortion, and any clinic is still free to open anywhere they want. So the 150 mile drive issue is simply a crock.
The truth is also that I’m glad the merchants of death would rather choose their money over their allegiance to Molech, because that means there will be less clinics, and less babies killed.
Until all are saved, we must keep fighting.