NRL News

Supreme Court decision puts “the interests of for-profit abortion businesses ahead of the health and safety of women”

by | Jul 8, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

Louisiana state Sen. Katrina Jackson reminds me of pro-life Black women I knew years ago back in Minneapolis when I along with them and others attempted to keep a pro-life caucus alive in a Democrat Party which had little use for us and was growing more intolerant by the day. Smart, determined, impossible to intimidate. I was privileged to work with women like Sen. Jackson.

You might know that Sen. Jackson, then a state Representative, authored the bill that the Supreme Court obliterated a week ago Monday. Here’s the opening paragraph of a guest op-ed she wrote for USA Today:

This week the United States Supreme Court issued a tragic decision in June Medical Services v. Russo to continue putting the interests of for-profit abortion businesses ahead of the health and safety of women by striking down legislation I authored in 2014 called the “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.”

“For-profit abortion businesses” is a simple statement of fact. If you have access to Lexus Nexus, I wonder if that description has ever shown up in a “non-partisan” setting, such as the New York Times, CNN, or NPR? I’m guessing not.

She tells us in the second paragraph why she authored the bill:

My desire to author the legislation came from listening to the stories of women hurt by abortion as I sat on the Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee and placing myself in their shoes. As I listened, I learned that the women of Louisiana were suffering because of the negligence of medical professionals and deplorable conditions at our state’s abortion facilities.

Again, how often does this ugly truth pokes its head into the national conversation? Abortion is safe, safe, safe, and abortion clinics are “there for women.” How often do we hear that?!

Please take a few minutes to read Sen. Jackson’s op-ed. Let me add just one more quote and comment before you hit the hyperlink.

This legislation was also not a matter of the underlying legality of abortion. While abortion is legally protected, abortion facilities should have the same health standards as the rest of the medical profession. Why should we settle for lower standards for women, especially when women are often coerced or abandoned to the trauma of abortion? I am pro-woman and pro-life.

Why, indeed? Why shouldn’t abortionists be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they are aborting babies in case of emergency? As Justice Gorsuch wrote in his dissent

Act 620’s admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers tracks longstanding state laws governing physicians who perform relatively low-risk procedures like colonoscopies, Lasik eye surgeries, and steroid injections at ambulatory surgical centers. 

Yes, to Lasik eye surgery, not for abortion. Does that not perfectly capture the bizarre inconsistency, or what?

Categories: Supreme Court