The abortion case, the first to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, centered on a Texas law, known as HB2. The law required abortionists and abortion facilities to comply with the same health and safety standards as similar outpatient, surgical centers.
Let's get something straight. Many abortions are surgical and invasive. In a D&E abortion for example (sometimes called a dismemberment abortion), the abortionist sticks sharp metal instruments inside the mother's uterus and rips and tears and scrapes every part of the live unborn baby out of the womb. Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino goes into more detail about it here.
Unfortunately, the Court ruled against Texas, essentially giving abortionists a free pass to elude medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow.
Even mainstream media articles emblazoned with pictures of abortion activists crying tears of joy in front of the steps of the Supreme Court, couldn't distract from the sad reality that the real losers in this case are women. Time and again, women have been preyed upon by cut-and-run abortionists who have zero regard for their health and safety, and who just want to make money from the lives of their unborn children.
The Texas law was enacted following the discovery of Kermit Gosnell's House of Horrors in Pennsylvania, after which the grand jury in the case called for states to raise health standards in order to better protect women. In fact, they recommended that "abortion clinics should be regulated, licensed, and monitored as Ambulatory Surgical Facilities."
But the Court's opinion said, "The record contains nothing to suggest that H. B. 2 would be more effective than pre-existing Texas law at deterring wrongdoers like Gosnell from criminal behavior." Abortion activists were emboldened by this declaration, with the Washington Post making the scary declaration that dangerous abortionists and filthy clinics are just a "myth."
Gosnell is an example of the absolute worst of the worst, to be sure, but when abortion facilities regularly fail health inspections, and Planned Parenthood affiliates commit abortions without a license, and condemned abortionists have the freedom to leave one state where they've lost their license and set up shop in another state, there is a widespread problem.
Texas has every incentive to prevent this kind of despicable behavior by abortionists, and they should have the right to put in place common sense regulations designed to protect woman. If abortion facilities can't meet basic health and safety standards, then they shouldn't be in business—period.
Alliance Defending Freedom and our pro-life allies will continue to support states and local agencies that are pursuing similar laws that are designed to protect women, as well as measures to protect babies in the womb.
In fact, just days prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Students for Life of America announced that they now serve over 1,000 pro-life groups across the United States. These groups are made up of high school, college, law, medical school students, and young professionals who are passionately pro-life. This means Students for Life campus pro-life groups now outnumber pro-abortion groups nearly 4 to 1—praise God!
The pro-life community has many reasons to be encouraged, and nearly 60 million reasons in the U.S. alone to continue to do everything we can to combat the appalling disregard for women and children's lives and well-being in our society.
Let's not forget that.
Religious FreedomThe Donor Privacy Case: What a Win or Loss Could Mean for You
What does a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the State of California have to do with cancel culture? And what might the outcome of the case mean for your freedom? Let’s break it down.
Religious FreedomSCOTUS Acts to Protect the Free Exercise of Religion in the Pandemic and Beyond
Here are four quick takeaways from the Supreme Court ruling.
Religious FreedomThis Tech CEO’s Story Shows Why the Supreme Court Must Protect Donor Privacy
Brendan Eich’s story may be the canary in the coal mine for any American who has donated to a non-profit if the Supreme Court rules against donor privacy this term.