By Dave Andrusko
It’s happened before, so it came as little surprise that as the Supreme Court whittled its way through its remaining “controversial” cases yesterday, the justices left until next week–the last week of the current session–its ruling on Texas’s pro-life HB 2.
If you were to take the abortion blogosphere and the mainstream media (actually, one in the same) at their word, should the eight-member court upholds the 2013 law in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, life as the Abortion Industry has known it will end.
Ignoring the apocalyptic language, in fact if the two components of HB 2 under challenge by Texas abortion providers are upheld, it means abortion clinics in Texas will be held to minimal thresholds of patient safety.
It would mean that the memory of convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell has not been dumped down the memory hole and conveniently forgotten. It would mean that all the scare language opponents used had not overcome the facts.
Let me explain.
The linchpin of the hysteria campaign is that HB 2 is responsible for the closing of as many as 20 Texas abortion clinics and for longer patient wait times.
The former assertion was directly challenged at oral arguments by Justice Alito and poorly responded to by Center for Reproductive Rights’s attorney Stephanie Toti. Toti eventually was forced to admit she had failed to provide direct evidence linking any closures to the parts of the law that have been challenged.
What are the two components challenged? One component it is not is the one which prohibits killing 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.
Could it be that pro-abortionists were and are leery 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?
What they did challenge is familiar to readers of NRL News Today and NRL News: (1) that abortion clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers, and (2) that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles for situations of medical emergencies.
The former, we’re told, is too expensive and unnecessary, the latter is too onerous and also unnecessary.
Ask yourself this question. If there was a mountain of evidence that it very important that the “doctor” (the abortionist) be able to follow his patient to a nearby hospital in cases of emergency, do you think the Abortion Industry would agree? Well, there is plenty of evidence and the Abortion Industry still says the requirement is too onerous and unnecessary.
The High Court could rule in many different ways, especially in light of the fact that there are eight members. Everything from affirming both components to overturning both components to upholding one and striking down another to holding the case over until next term.
Talk to you Monday.