NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortion think-tank worries that if Supreme Court upholds admitting privileges requirement, “additional, draconian restrictions” will follow

by | Jun 26, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

Once upon a time (1968, to be exact), the Guttmacher Institute was housed inside Planned Parenthood. According to its official history, once renamed after a long-time PPFA president, it was “incorporated as an entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute with its own Board in 1977, but remained a special affiliate of PPFA.”

Then in 2007, “Guttmacher’s special affiliation status with PPFA was terminated, and PPFA’s financial support to the Institute, then at $395,000 (3.3% of Guttmacher’s total budget), was phased out over the following three years.” In a word, the Guttmacher Institute was birthed, nurtured, and eventually spun off from PPFA.

Why the history lesson? Holding an ostensibly independent status, the Guttmacher Institute’s research—which coincidences 100% with the policy aims of Planned Parenthood —is treated with the utmost deference by the media. Where every word from pro-lifers is treated with an attitude approaching scorn, the media swoons at every conclusion from the Guttmacher Institute.

So what does this “entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute” have to say about June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the Supreme Court case dealing with a challenge to Louisiana “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.” Act 620 requires that abortionists must have the right to admit patients to a hospital within 30 miles of the place where they performed the abortion. Contrary to pro-abortion mythology, Act 620 requires no more of abortionists than is  required of all other physicians in outpatient surgery settings in Louisiana as a backstop in case of medical emergencies. 

But to Guttmacher’s Elizabeth Nash and Megan K. Donovan, admitting privileges are “unnecessary” and will “imperil abortion access”(although to maintain the façade of objectivity, the last three words are followed by a question mark).

Of course, from the pro-abortion perspective, it goes without saying—although Nash and Donovan say it anyway—there are zero benefits to requiring abortionists to be able to follow the women they’ve aborted to a hospital. To them, “continuity of care” is just a pro-life talking point.

If the High Court upholds the Louisiana law, “One obvious option for states without active admitting privileges requirements would be to move swiftly to impose this type of restriction on providers, further tightening the web of antiabortion policies that limit access to care.”

Of course. That would also include states with such laws on the books but which “are not currently in effect due to litigation,” write Nash and Donovan. They “could potentially be used to achieve the same end, if states are able to revive the requirements through court action instead of by legislative or administrative processes.”

But worse, from the Abortion Industry and its think-tank mouthpiece’s viewpoint, is “A decision allowing Louisiana’s law to go into effect would embolden antiabortion lawmakers in other states to impose additional, draconian restrictions on abortion care.” They don’t go into detail, but National Right to Life affiliates are well-positioned to pass more legislation to protect unborn babies and their mothers.

Categories: pro-abortion
Tags: