Supreme Court Ruling Highlights Huge Hypocrisy on Abortion

galacticOn Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down two parts of a pro-life Texas law, HB 2, that protects women’s health and closed abortion clinics that can’t ensure adequate protection for women.  Lefty reactions to the 5-to-3 ruling highlight the galactic hypocrisy of so-called “safe and legal” abortion advocates.

The case that challenged the 2013 law is Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. When reviewing the case, the high court considered the extent to which laws that restrict access to abortion services in Texas serve the government’s stated interest in promoting women’s health.

Via LifeNews:

At issue in the ruling were two provisions–that abortion clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital for situations of medical emergencies.

Texas’ law is arguably responsible for saving the lives of tens of thousands of unborn babies by closing abortion clinics that are unable to protect women’s health. The laws protects women’s health and welfare by requiring abortion clinics to meet the kinds of medical and safety standards that legitimate medical centers meet.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said, “The decision erodes State’s lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost. Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”

Woodrow Wilcox


 “HB2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women,”said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives.”

Via Life News:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by the usual suspects (Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). Breyer wrote that “the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”

These two requirements pose a “substantial obstacle” and constitute an”undue burden” for women seeking a serious medical procedure? Let that sink in for a minute. (That’s okay. I’ll wait)

Three justices weren’t swallowing the Fool Aid on this one. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a blistering dissent. He wrote:

 “Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.’”

Continues Thomas:

 “… today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights— especially the putative right to abortion.”

Thomas was joined in his dissent by Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. READ: Supreme Court ruling on Texas’ abortion laws

Monday’s ruling ignited the usual love-fest among the usual suspects. The Party of Debt, Dependency and Death crowed with glee. President Clueless was reportedly “pleased” with the decision. Career Corruptocrat Hillary Clinton hailed the decision as “a victory for women.” She tweeted:

“This fight isn’t over: The next president has to protect women’s health. Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights. -H.”

So, let me get this straight. Abortion advocates and their political allies went ballistic over laws providing maximum protection for women for a procedure that’s, um, significantly more serious than having your teeth cleaned. The reigning Government Regulation Champs of the World sued to elude medical requirements that similar facilities are required to follow. They’re toasting a court decision giving abortion clinics carte blanche to ignore basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions.

THIS is a “victory for women”? Excuse me?

In Abortion Proponents Anoint Themselves Women’s Rights Champions, Complain That Protecting Women is Too Expensive, author Drew Belsky notes:

 It is very hard for the abortion lobby to present coherent opposition to the actual provisions of bills like HB2. They’d much rather play psychic than explain why abortion mills having to adhere to the same standards as any other surgical facility oppresses women, or why sufficiently wide hallways – which could have saved Gosnell victim Karnamaya Mongar, by the way, had a requirement for them been enforced – impose a financial burden so onerous as to make it preferable to imperil women’s lives and safety by going without them.

At least they’re consistent?

Whatever else the Hellerstedt decision may be, one thing it’s most definitely not is a victory for women – or “safe and legal” anything. Instead, this case highlights the galactic hypocrisy of the abortion industry and its political lackeys who continue to erode state’s rights while prioritizing the bottom line of the abortion industry over the health and safety of women. It’s misogyny on steroids. Or Supremes.

H/T: Fox News

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

A multi-published author and recovering Democrat, Kristine Lowder is a native Californian recently transplanted to the People’s Republic of Washington State. She still refuses to cede her life, fortune, or sacred honor to liberal Nazgul or anyone else with poor eyesight. Kristine is a graduate of Biola University. You can find her online at: Kristine Lowder, Writer or at Conservelocity.
Kristine Lowder
View all articles by Kristine Lowder
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    Any “pro-choice” commenters want to say something about this one?