In the wake of Kermit Gosnell’s abortion mill horrors, the state of Texas responsibly passed a 2013 law that requires abortion clinics have the same health standards as surgical centers and that physicians performing abortions have privileges at a nearby hospital to admit patients with complications.
These requirements were not only reasonable, they were recommended in the Philadelphia Grand Jury report in the Gosnell case and, many years earlier, endorsed in Roe V. Wade, which reads:
“…a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation… are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.”
Aside from the astounding fact that Roe V. Wade explicitly provides states with the authority to institute these, the pro-abortion lobby was vexed by the Texas law and promptly sued on ridiculous claims that the law was a burdensome barrier to abortions.
In an unconscionable ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Texas law known as HB2 in Whole Woman’s Health versus Hellerstedt, calling the regulations a “substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking” abortions. Even more irrationally, Justice Breyer’s opinion claims these regulations violate the US Constitution.
While this ruling is no doubt a setback, the prolife movement’s durable progress of the past few decades is not washed away by this decision and there’s little doubt that, just as Supreme Court rulings have done in the past, this one will result in similar and stronger laws that will withstand the High Court’s scrutiny.