The U.S. Supreme Court struck down abortion clinic restrictions in Texas Monday, arguing that regulations such as requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges is an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.
The decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt came on a 5-3 ruling with Justice Stephen Breyer writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both wrote dissenting opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Alito’s dissent, as did Thomas.
“”We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” wrote Breyer, referring to the admitting privileges and the regulation requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers.
“”Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access … and each violates the federal Constitution,” added Breyer.
The pro-life community is appalled.
“There’s just no rational, legal basis for this decision today other than radical abortion advocacy,” said Susan B. Anthony List National Campaign Chair Jill Stanek, a former nurse who became a pro-life activist after holding a baby who died after a botched abortion because the provider refused to offer life-saving measures.
“This is the most consequential decision in a quarter of a century and it did not go our way,” said Stanek, referring to the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 ruling.
Stanek referred to both dissenting opinions in explaining how she believes the majority got it wrong.
“As Justice Alito said in his dissent, ‘The court’s patent refusal to apply well-established in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the court as a fair, neutral arbiter,'” said Stanek.
She also cited Justice Thomas.
“Justice Thomas called this judicial fiat. he said, ‘As the court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our Constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.’ That’s just what this was today,” said Stanek.
In addition to the legal arguments. Stanek says the biggest losers in this case are the women of Texas.
“Texas women are not going to be protected from unsanitary conditions and even Gosnell-like horrors that permeate the abortion industry,” said Stanek.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell is the Philadelphia-based abortion provider serving a life sentence for killing babies that survived abortions and for the death of a woman under his care at a filthy clinic.
Stanek says 26 abortion clinics have been shut down nationwide for failing to maintain the sanitary conditions required by those states. She says the list of violations should make any stomach turn.
“They had unsterile instruments, spattered dried blood on exam tables, spattered blood on the walls and the floors, expired medication, incompetent administration of anesthesia by workers off the streets with no medical background, faulty defibrillators,” said Stanek.
“(They were also) throwing fetal remains and patient records away in the regular trash, putting infants’ remains down garbage disposals, staff including doctors admitting they didn’t wash hands between patients, dead insects, locked doors and blocked emergency exits,” said Stanek.
She says the potential for even worse horrors exists in many states, including her own.
“In Illinois and many other states, abortion clinics are less regulated that veterinary clinics, roofers and nail salons. How can this be good for the health and safety of women,” said Stanek.
She says the bottom line is that abortion proponents do not have the interests of patients first and foremost.
“We know the abortion industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself and they know it. The mere fact they strongly opposed this reasonable, common sense safeguard for women just reveals the true nature of it as a pro-profit business model. The industry would rather tolerate conditions reminiscent of back-alley abortions than invest in upgrading their facilities,” said Stanek.
In his majority opinion, Breyer cited the Gosnell case in a way that stunned Stanek.
“There’s no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have effected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by new overlay of regulations,” wrote Breyer.
Stanek says that logic is very dangerous.
“If that’s the standard then there should be no rule of law in the U.S.,” said Stanek.
