Pro-abortion reaction to Texas’s appeal of decision striking Dismemberment Abortion Ban most revealing

By Dave Andrusko

Judge Lee Yeakel

As NRL News Today reported almost immediately after a federal judge struck down Texas’ Dismemberment Abortion Ban, Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would appeal the ruling, saying the law was constitutional and intended to protect “unborn human life from ghastly dismemberment abortions.” The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal.

“No just society should tolerate the tearing of living human beings to pieces,” Paxton said last Wednesday, adding that the law “treats the unborn with dignity and respect and protects the integrity of the medical profession.”

Already there is discussion whether the ban on this grotesque method of tearing living human beings apart will reach the Supreme Court. The pro-abortion site offered an analysis today which is worth pondering. First, the background.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin is as reliable a buttress as any pro-abortionist could possibly desire. In his 27 page opinion, Judge Yeakel traveled hither and yon to tell us that the ban (an amendment to Senate Bill 8 which passed overwhelmingly earlier this year) is all but patently unconstitutional.

In a nutshell, Judge Yeakel concluded

The State’s valid interest in promoting respect for the life of the unborn, although legitimate, is not sufficient to justify such a substantial obstacle to the constitutionally protected right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.

In fact, “The State’s valid interest in promoting respect for the life of the unborn” is so unimportant to Judge Yeakel that he can breezily dismissed it in a couple of sentences. It’s a throwaway line to a judge who already had his mind made up.

There are a number of arguments Jessica Mason Pieklo makes at By way of placing Yeakel’s track record in context, he “is the same judge that ruled against the state of Texas again and again in Hellerstedt.”

This, of course, was the case that eventually reached the Supreme Court in 2016 where the justices rejected commonsense requirements to protect women and to insist that abortion clinics meet a more than absolutely bare minimal level of cleanliness.

Pieklo does a good job of laying out Justice Anthony Kennedy’s deep dissatisfaction with partial-birth abortion which eventually was outlawed by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. Pro-lifers maintain that the same objections Kennedy voiced to partial-birth abortions apply to the barbarism of ripping a living unborn child apart and having her bleed to death.

Pro-abortionists counter that the ban prohibits the most common second trimester abortion technique and therefore is by definition an undue burden (a position Judge Yeakel found persuasive).

But bear in mind that all the Dismemberment Abortion Ban requires is for the abortionist to stop the fetal heartbeat before he begins his hideous abortion technique. The judge echoed the abortion lobby’s contention that the alternatives were dangerous and that it is not “necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the woman.”

Of course, this bypasses the argument (made by AG Paxton above) that the ban “treats the unborn with dignity and respect and protects the integrity of the medical profession.” As to the contention that Pieklo, like Judge Yeakel, flatly declare–that the state had not made a case that the alternatives were safe—Texas Right to Life keenly noted

When on the stand, Texas abortionists challenging SB 8 contradicted one another and admitted to being trained and well-versed in, and even of having policies of, promoting alternative abortion methods in compliance with the Dismemberment Abortion Ban. At the end of the day, the abortion industry was forced to graphically describe the draconian and violent process of taking a child’s life through dismemberment, while also defending the practice they claim Texas has no right to prohibit.

While I grant you I do not routinely read pro-abortion medical journals, I wonder if before there were dismemberment abortion bans was the abortion lobby bemoaning how dangerous were other second trimester abortion techniques? I strongly suspect they weren’t.

Pieko, like other pro-abortionists and judges like Yeakel, assure themselves of ultimate success by insisting that protective state abortion laws are examples of evidence-free lawmaking. In fact there are sound evidence-based reasons for laws like Dismemberment Abortion Bans and Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts.

When either or both reach the Supreme Court, they will be on display.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments to