No Supreme Court decision today on pro-life Texas law

By Dave Andrusko

supremecourtchamber4Referring to one of the two requirements of Texas’ HB 2, Rebecca Terrell, the executive director of a Tennessee clinic called CHOICES: Memphis Center For Reproductive Health, told Lisette Mejia of about the mandate that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital that

“It’s one of those things that’s so frustrating because it sounds so innocuous — it sounds like common sense.”

Well….yes. It does sound like common sense because it is common sense. And it’s a requirement that makes common sense not just in Texas but in any state that worries about women after the abortionist botches the abortion.

For all the Court watchers (including National Right to Life), 10:00 came and went this morning and no decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. A decision in HB 2 could come down Monday, or later in the month. Only the eight justices know.

I spent part of the afternoon reading some of the ‘friend of the court’ briefs filed in the case. As is always the case in litigation, it’s as if the parties are talking about two entirely different set of facts.

For party of abortion, the law is part of a mega-narrative. As Elizabeth Nash, who works on state issues at the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute told Mejia, “What we see now are efforts designed to close clinics and decrease access without directly banning abortion.”

As evidence, supporters of this view cite the number of clinics that closed in Texas. But NRLC Director of Education Dr. Randall KJ. O’Bannon demolished this linkage in a four-part series, citing a whole host of reasons clinics were closing even before HB 2 passed. (Hint: consolidation, largely the work of Planned Parenthood, was a key ingredient. See here.)

Pro-lifers make the case that requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and for the abortion clinic to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers are women-centric. The passion and the vituperation with which pro-abortion “feminists” denounce these mandates is astonishing.

We’ll again talk briefly tomorrow about Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. On Monday we hope to be able to write a story about how the Supreme Court upheld this commonsensical law.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha