Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard its biggest
abortion related case in nearly 25-years – Whole
Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The
case involves a Texas law, House Bill 2, that implements safety standards for
abortion clinics that match up with the regulations of other surgical clinics. The standards include: requirements to uphold
quality of care, cleanliness and safety; proper staffing; and safe laboratory
services. For example, the law requires
hallways to be wide enough for gurneys to transport women into an ambulance. The
law also requires abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a
hospital within 30-miles of the clinic.
Clearly, these standards are in the best interest of women’s health.
Those who oppose the law say it’s an “undue burden” on women
and a way to restrict access to abortions.
They believe the extra expense to implement the safety standards will
cause abortion clinics to close. In
fact, opponents say the Texas legislature’s goal in passing the law was to shut
the doors of abortion clinics and “single out abortion for heightened medical
regulation.”
Texas says its law is a way to prevent what happened at the
clinic of late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, PA. A jury convicted Gosnell of three counts of
murder for killing three infants born alive by cutting their spinal cords with
scissors. He also was found guilty of
involuntary manslaughter in the death of a 41-year-old immigrant who died from
a drug overdose during a botched abortion.
In addition to the murder convictions, Gosnell was found guilty on 21-felony
counts of performing illegal abortions and 211-counts of violating the 24-hour
informed consent law. Investigators
described his clinic as a “house of horrors,” with bloodstained walls,
unsterilized medical equipment and fetal remains stored in the employee
refrigerator.
In Whole Woman’s
Health v. Hellerstedt, SCOTUS will consider if the regulations outlined in
the Texas law pass the “undue burden” standard expressed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). The “undue burden” test bans states from
putting into effect abortion regulations before viability— regulations that
have the “purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a
woman seeking an abortion.” SCOTUS
determined viability to be 23-24 weeks gestation because of medical advances.
Texas says there is enough evidence that the regulations
under its law are vital to promote the health and safety of women.
With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS could tie
4-4, which would uphold the appeals court decision in favor of the Texas law. A conservative or liberal justice would have
to break ranks to avoid a tie.
“Abortionists should not be given a free pass to elude
medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow,” said Alliance
Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “The 5th Circuit was on firm legal ground in
its decision, and we have asked the Supreme Court to affirm it. The law’s requirements are common-sense
protections that ensure the maximum amount of safety for women,” Aden said.
Be sure to read my follow-on to this blog posting on
Wednesday, March 9th.
Rev. Dr.
Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain
(Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor,
Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
No comments:
Post a Comment