Judge hears pro-abortionists’ challenge to parts of Texas Omnibus pro-life law

By Dave Andrusko

Judge Lee Yeakel

Judge Lee Yeakel

Opponents of Texas multi-pronged pro-life legislation had their day in court Monday, arguing for a preliminary injunction against two provisions of Texas multi-pronged HB 2 scheduled to take effect October 29.

At issue in “Planned Parenthood v. Abbott “(the Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott) is 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 the requirement that the abortionist has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

HB 2 was famously filibustered by state Senator (and now gubernatorial candidate) Wendy Davis which only served to delay passage until a third special session was called by pro-life Gov. Rick Perry.

Opponents have “asked Judge Lee Yeakel to delay enforcement of the admitting privileges requirement and the restrictions on medical abortions because they violate a woman’s right to an abortion and the doctor’s rights to work and apply the safest standard of care to their patients,” the Associated Press’s Chris Tomlinson reported.

The chemical abortifacient provision [which pro-abortionists call “medical abortions”] infuriates 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 such 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.

Opponents have not challenged that part of the law 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, if not earlier. 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.

Tomlinson writes that if Yeakel imposes a temporary injunction, Abbott will immediately appeal that decision to the New Orleans-based court 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

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