Planned Parenthood, CRR, and the ACLU file lawsuit against portions of Texas’ HB 2

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-Life Gov. Rick Perry

Pro-Life Gov. Rick Perry

It took perhaps longer than we might have expected, but today Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state of Texas over the famous House Bill 2, claiming that two of its major pro-life provisions are unconstitutional. These portions of the law go into effect October 1. The package of bills was signed into law July 18 by pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is quoted as saying, “We’re in court today to stop a terrible situation for women in Texas from getting even worse.”

The groups, which are suing on behalf of a dozen abortion providers, are not challenging the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 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. 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.

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

Instead, in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott (Abbott is Attorney General Greg Abbott) they are tackling two other provisions: the requirement that the abortionist administer chemical abortifacients in person, rather than via videoconferencing where he is never in the same room with the mother; and that the requirement that the abortionist has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

The former provision is particularly annoying to pro-abortionists because so-called “web-cam abortions” offer a potentially massively lucrative stream of new revenue. Rather than go to individual women or have them come to an abortion clinic, the abortionist sits in his office and can contact women all over the state, especially in the “underserved” rural areas.

After a perfunctory “counseling,” the abortionist remotely releases the abortion pills to the woman. She first takes the mifepristone (RU-486) at the abortion clinic. Later at home she takes misoprostol, a prostaglandin, to initiate powerful contractions to expel the tiny corpse.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union insist there ingesting powerful chemical abortifacients poses no danger to women. But according to an FDA report (now over three years old) in the United States alone, 14 women have died since September 2000 while another 612 were hospitalized. There have been thousands of “adverse events,” including 339 cases in which blood loss was serious enough to require transfusions, according to the FDA.

And it precisely because there can be complications that the law requires the abortionist to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

 Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.