Supreme Court protected predators, not women
The Supreme Court ruled against women’s welfare in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
The Texas suit resulted from legislation to put the same health and safety standards into abortion centers as there are in ambulatory surgical centers. It was prompted by the horrifying Gosnell case in Philadelphia, where investigators found themselves in a situation of squalor that included fleas and blood stains. The standards were the ones recommended by the Grand Jury that investigated Gosnell.
The provisions struck down were the requirements for health and safety standards and also the requirement that abortionists had to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away so that they could provide continued care to patients in case of complications. The ruling held that these provisions constituted an undue burden for women seeking abortions.
The “undue burden,” for instance, of minimum corridor width isn’t obvious under normal circumstances. However, it can cost precious minutes if an ambulance crew discovers when they arrive for an emergency transport that their gurney will not roll around a corner.
Ryan Bomberger said, “Texas moved to protect women. The Supreme Court moved to protect the predators.”
Dr. John Bruchalski, of Divine Mercy Care, in a letter, marveled, “There are those who wish to regulate lemonade stands but not abortion clinics; it doesn’t make any sense.”
He’s right. It really doesn’t make sense.
www.townhall.com/columnists/ryanbomberger/2016/07/01/supremely-wrong-court-protects-gosnells-instead-of-womens-health-n2186047 www.nationalreview.com/corner/437259/abortion-pro-life-optimism-after-supreme-court-whole-womens-health-v-hellerstedt www.aol.com/article/2016/06/27/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-texas-abortion-law/21419717 www.townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2016/06/29/a-disastrous-court-decision-on-abortion-n2185030