Elections Have Consequences – Just Ask Unborn Children in Texas
If you don’t think elections have consequences you haven’t been paying attention for the past 8 years. If you think the upcoming election won’t have consequences, you simply have no grasp on our current cultural position.
The most pro-abortion president in American history has had 8 years in the White House. His tenure has produced two staunch abortion advocates on the Supreme Court. With these allies firmly in place for the rest of their lives the high court of our country currently stands firmly with the abortion industry. That realty has had a devastating effect on the efforts of individual states to pass common sense laws to protect women and unborn children from the barbarism of abortion.
The most recent setback to efforts of pro-life advocates came from the Supreme Court ruling in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case. The court decided that requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals and requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers were unconstitutional and “not medically necessary.”
To break this down, which will help understand the absurdity of the pro-abortion position and the court’s ruling, let’s make sure we understand exactly what these two laws were seeking to accomplish.
Texas wanted to make sure women were protected in the event of a medical emergency. It is well documented that abortions can have complications that result in medical emergencies (women are often taken to the nearest hospital in an ambulance). So Texas decided that abortionists should have admitting privileges should this medical emergency occur. This simply means the abortionist should be on record with the local hospital and be allowed to attend to any woman needing medical care.
The abortion industry, and the Supreme Court, found that to be “unconstitutional” and “medically unnecessary.” This means they do not believe it is in a woman’s best interest that her abortion doctor be allowed to help her at the local hospital should an emergency occur. But don’t worry; they are all about “women’s health.”
Furthermore, SCOTUS decided that abortion clinics don’t really need to be held to the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. This simply means abortion clinics don’t have to pass inspections, stay clean, or be hygienic, like other medical facilities. But don’t worry; because they are all about taking care of women.
Steven Aden with Alliance Defending Freedom made the need for this provision clear:
“Abortionists shouldn’t be given a free pass to elude medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow. We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled against a law so clearly designed to protect the health and safety of women in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal. The law’s requirements were commonsense protections that ensured the maximum amount of protection for women, who deserve to have their well-being treated by government as a higher priority than the bottom line of abortionists. Any abortion facilities that don’t meet basic health and safety standards are not facilities that anyone should want to remain open.”
Abortion advocates were giddy with excitement at this ruling. They showed how distasteful they could be with their reactions. The Daily Show sent out this tweet:
“Celebrate the #SCOTUS ruling! Go knock someone up in Texas!”
The tweet encourages getting a woman in Texas pregnant just so she can have an abortion. Ugh…seriously. Some pro-abortion advocates found the tweet disgusting and in poor taste. Others, however, thought it was a great joke.
Pro-life groups were quick to condemn the decision as another example of creating a “right to abortion.” Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t hold back in his dissent. He not only blasted the court for once again creating a right to abortion, he attacked the court for bending the rules to protect abortion. He wrote:
“Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue… today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights— especially the putative right to abortion.”
Despite the setback for individual states in regulating an immoral and medically unnecessary practice, LifeNews reminds us that there is some good news:
“Because the abortion industry never challenged the provision of HB 2 which protects pain-capable preborn children from excruciating dismemberment abortions from 20 weeks gestation, a measure on the 2013 Priority Pro-Life Legislative Agenda, spearheaded by Texas Right to Life, that provision of the law will remain in effect…The provisions struck by the Court today were part of a broader pro-life omnibus package passed by the Texas legislature in 2013. Texas HB2 also included National Right to Life model language to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing great pain when being killed by dismemberment or other late abortion methods. An unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks after fertilization and earlier. That provision of the law was unchallenged in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”
Good. Unborn children at 20 weeks that are more than capable of feeling pain cannot be torn apart by an abortion procedure. The 20-week pain capable laws are being passed by more states and are much needed in efforts to defend the unborn.
The SCOTUS ruling is disappointing. But it underscores the critical nature of elections and the consequences that come with them. Had the most pro-abortion president in American history not been in office the outcome of this case might have been different. With one vacancy on the high court still in play we need to be prepared to make our vote count in November. Lives literally hang in the balance.