For all the fuss that has been made over the SCOTUS in recent years, very little of consequence has actually happened. It seems disqualifying potentially dangerous candidates for personal reasons has become a national pastime. For what few cases reach their bench, the circus around new Supreme Court nominees has far outweighed the hubbub of any of their recent decisions.
That is, until Friday, October 4th, when they took on the most recent case concerning new abortion contingency legislation from Louisiana.
The Daily Caller reports:
At issue in Friday’s case is a Louisiana law called the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act or Act 620. The measures requires that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Pro-choice litigators say the law is identical to a Texas regulation the Supreme Court struck down in a 2016 case called Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Opponents of Act 620 say it is little more than a stealth measure to end abortion. They fear physicians will have difficulty obtaining admitting privilege despite good faith efforts to comply with the state’s regulation, meaning qualified doctors might have to close their practices without good reason. They further say the admitting privileges requirement is medically unnecessary, since few abortions require emergency surgical intervention.
I would say there’s potential for a lot more if you also count the babies that survive.
Of significant note is this tidbit right here:
After Texas implemented the regulation at issue in Whole Women’s Health, half of its 40 abortion clinics closed. Pro-choice advocates warn of a similar outcome in Louisiana, which has just three abortion providers.
That’s a very interesting way to word it, as “providers” does not translate to “clinics.” Planned Parenthood is just one “provider;” one of several in the nation, with multitudinous clinics to their name. It does not disclose just how many clinics there are. Some are even known to operate in secret, but that’s another show.
If you swim all the way to the very bottom of the article you’ll find that this paltry, oppressed lonesome trio of abortion providers still manage a rate of 10,000 abortions annually in Louisiana. That’s not a small operation. That’s 27 abortions a day, that doesn’t sound very ‘rare’ to this author. How many of those children are extracted at term, and how many would survive the procedure if they were required to be in ambulance distance?
It would seem this law is designed to give abortion practitioners no excuse to not preserve life that resists their efforts. This statute would mean no more Louisiana children would be thrown screaming into dumpsters or harvested alive because “oops, the hospital’s too far away.” Even disregarding the ‘clusters of cells,’ there’s no reason a clinic shouldn’t be within safe distance and have an open bed reserved for any women that have botched abortions on their watch. This is about the safety and health of the mother, after all. If 63 million children didn’t matter, surely these most noble Women’s Advocates’ profits wouldn’t compare to their clients’ safety either.
No matter which way you see it, an affirmation of Act 620 by the Supreme Court would be a stand against corporate profit-mongering in favor of enforcing ethical practice and human rights. This author knows those are very muddied phrases thanks to the abortionists, but good should win out here. Is this really what the Kavanaugh detractors were afraid of?