Monday’s Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that requires abortion clinics to have sterilized surgical facilities and abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals is a sign that the abortion industry is getting a “free pass” on critical medical safety standards, prominent pro-life activists are saying.
In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to strike down two key components of Texas’ House Bill 2. The high court ruled that the law’s requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals and abortion clinics be regulated as surgical centers was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“It sets a national precedent because it is a 5-3 decision,” Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, told The Christian Post on Monday. “We think what it means is that states are not able to pass reasonable safety standards to regulate abortion facilities, to bring them up to the same standards of care that patients enjoy for similar procedures other than abortion.”
As a result of the ruling, Pojman says that states will not only be prohibited from forcing abortion providers to have admitting privileges at hospitals in case women have serious complications with the abortion procedures, but states are also barred from forcing standalone abortion clinics to have sterile operating rooms.
“We have looked at the inspection records of many of these abortion facilities that were performed by our state agency, the Department of State Health Services. In particular, the lead plaintiff, Whole Woman’s Health, has many serious problems at its abortion facilities,” Pojman explained. “It is very evident that their staff, frequently, is not properly trained to even sterilize the surgical instruments that are used from woman to woman at abortion facilities and that is a very frightening thought to us. So, the state of Texas can not even require that adequate sterile operating rooms be required.”
As with many other recent Supreme Court decisions, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote, as he sided with the liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority opinion. Pojman doesn’t believe that the justices read a number of briefs that were submitted to the court with testimony from medical experts.
“The Supreme Court is making it very clear that abortion providers get a pass, a free ride and are not required to provide the same level of care for women seeking abortions as are required virtually every other comparable medical procedure in Texas,” Pojman continued. “It is inconsistent and it is unjust and is certainly not required by the United States Constitution.”
In a statement shared with CP, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins also stressed that the Supreme Court seems to be giving the abortion industry a “free pass.”
(Photo: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
Demonstrators hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court is due to issue its first major abortion ruling since 2007 against a backdrop of unremitting divisions among Americans on the issue and a decades-long decline in the rate at which women terminate pregnancies in Washington, U.S. June 27, 2016.
Perkins explained that over 26,500 women in 2011 experienced abortion-related complications and 3,200 women needed to be hospitalized after their abortion.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down H.B. 2 undermines the health and safety of vulnerable women. This decision is a loss for women and gives the abortion industry a free pass,” Perkins argued. “Hair and nail salons, public pools, restaurants, and tanning centers must meet basic health and safety standards — shouldn’t abortion facilities? Abortion facilities cannot be exempt from following basic health standards.”
Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the Supreme Court’s decision “sad” and “pathetic.”
“The court handed down a sad and pathetic ruling that essentially leaves the abortion industry unregulated in a kind of wild west, laissez faire sort of situation in the state of Texas that we wouldn’t allow for any other industry,” Moore said in a video posted to Twitter. “I think this ought to show us, as the church, just how far we have to go in persuading our neighbors of the dignity and the sanctity of every human life — not because of the usefulness of that human life as it is perceived by society but because of the image of God.”
Lila Rose, president of the pro-life advocacy group Live Action, said in a statement shared with CP that despite the ruling, “the abortion lobby’s victory will be short lived” because more and more people are starting to “recognize the humanity of the child in the womb.”
“Polls show that people’s hearts and minds are changing on abortion as science now shows that human life begins at conception, but the court remains stuck in the anti-science, pro-abortion ideology of the 1970s,” Rose said. “While no woman or preborn child is safe in an abortion facility, it ought to raise huge red flags that the abortion industry — while claiming the banner of ‘women’s health’ — is willing to compromise women’s safety by refusing to meet the same basic health and safety standards that most medical centers do. These types of laws are ones that everyone should be able to agree on.”
“As Justice [Samuel] Alito wrote in his dissent, Kermit Gosnell’s abortion house of horrors would have been closed down, and a woman’s and three infants’ lives would have been saved if these laws were in place in his state,” she continued. “It’s tragic and unjust that the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge that abortion is a violent and brutal act against women and a horrific human rights abuse against children, stripping children of their first human right, which is life.”
Pojman told CP that the court’s ruling shows how important it will be to elect a president in November who will appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. As there is already a vacancy caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the next president could influence the balance on the court for years to come.
“The next president will not just have influence for four or eight years but for a generation,” Pojman said. “We’re going to be reminding voters how incredibly important this upcoming election is. It is probably more important from this point of view than any other election any living person has had to vote in. It is absolutely critical we have the right person in the White House to fill the current vacancy and vacancies in the foreseeable future.”
Source: The Christian Post
