NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortionists consider response to Texas’s HB 2

by | Jul 18, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

TXprotester2The headline on yesterday’s story in the Texas Tribune read, “Groups Weigh Legal Challenge to Abortion Bill.”

By “groups” Shefali Luthra meant the usual suspects including the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Here’s the opening:

“There are no decisions about litigation, but I think that may be the course we have to follow,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. Burke said the ACLU Texas legal team is evaluating potential challenges to the bill and that any litigation would be part of a larger strategy that includes attempting to influence elections. The organization is one of a handful considering a legal challenge to the restrictions.”

(Planned Parenthood is “weighing its options.”) Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law. The law takes effect 91 days after the second special session ends, according to Luthra.

There are four primary components to HB 2: a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy–the point at which medical evidence demonstrates the unborn child can feel pain–unless the mother’s life is in danger; the abortionist would be required to administer chemical abortifacients in person, rather than via videoconferencing where he is never in the same room with the mother; the abortionist must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles; and a requirement that abortions be performed at an ambulatory surgical center.

Reading Luthra’s story, not surprisingly, the latter provision is least high on their list since it does not take effect until 2014. Or at least that’s what they were telling Luthra.

The brunt of the case against the bill is that it conflicts with Roe as modified by the 1992 Casey Supreme Court decision (the “undue burden” test) and that a similar law was enjoined (Arizona). Let’s take a quick look at this.

Does the State have a “compelling interest” in protecting from abortion unborn children capable of experiencing pain beyond imagination? Were this law challenged and to reach the United States Supreme Court, the Justices would be asked to recognize that science has not stood still over the past four decades.

Is it an example of an “undue burden” or concern for women’s safety to require that the abortionist actually be in the same room as the woman ingesting the abortifacients? According to an FDA report dated April 30, 2011, in the United States alone, 14 women have died since September 2000 while another 612 were hospitalized. As NRLC’s Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon has warned repeatedly, there have been thousands of “adverse events,” including 339 cases in which blood loss was serious enough to require transfusions, according to the FDA.

Likewise, if the abortionist does not have admitting privileges, he cannot be part of the treatment team if there are complications and she is rushed to a hospital.

Finally, the atrocities committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell have driven home a truth too long suppressed: too often there are either no abortion clinic regulations or if there are, they are loosely enforced (for that read, “ignored”). The Abortion Industry would have you believe that abortion is safe-safe (for the mother) and that it can easily self-regulate. Neither is true, which testimony at trial would bring out.

 If you want to help unborn babies,
Click here to receive the latest pro-life news and commentary

According to Luthra, Janet Crepps, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, “said she could not say with certainty whether the Center for Reproductive Rights would bring a lawsuit against the state, but she said it ‘would be very difficult to sit by’ and let HB 2 take effect.”

Crepps pointed out has a “long history of bringing litigation against Texas,” including Texas’ 2011 sonogram law.

Neither Luthra nor Crepps pointed out that they lost that challenge. (See “Appeals Court Opens Way to Immediate Enforcement of Texas Sonogram law” )

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Categories: post-abortion