5th Circuit Upholds Texas Pro Life Law

Texas abortion ap 328 6051

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling and upheld Texas’ pro life law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have hospital privileges. A provision of the law that requires that abortion clinics to provide the same level of safety to patients as other free-standing surgery centers will take affect later this year.

The law became a national cause when Texas state Senator Wendy Davis derailed the first attempt at passage with a filibuster. Since its passage, the Texas statute has resulted in the closure of a number of abortion clinics in the state of Texas.

From Fox News:

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Texas’ tough new abortion restrictions that shuttered many of the abortions clinics in the state.

A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and served no medical purpose. In its opinion, the appeals court said the law “on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.”

Texas lawmakers last year passed some of the toughest restrictions in the U.S. on when, where and how women may obtain an abortion. The Republican-controlled Legislature required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and placed strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills.

  • oregon nurse

    This rule is a no-brainer. But yet women were fighting it and wanting to keep an unsafe standard of care. Insanity.

    • Bill S

      It’s not about women’s health. It is about protection of the unborn. As nice as that might sound, it is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will overrule the 5th Circuit Court, which had three conservative Bush appointees.

      • oregon nurse

        Abortion is ALWAYS about women’s HEALTH or haven’t you been paying attention.

        Thing is, any time a law comes up that really is about women’s health, women will fight it if it does anything to encroach on their abilty to kill children. Like I said, it’s insanity. But insanity (or just plain evil) is the only rational explanation for people who classify pregnancy as a disease (HHS mandate) and call murderous abortion ‘health care’.
        Is 5:20 and Jn 8:44

        • Bill S

          Thing is, any time a law comes up that really is about women’s health, women will fight it if it does anything to encroach on their abilty to kill children.

          To you, safe and legal abortion translates to killing children. This is the bias on which this bill is built. Why not just admit how underhanded it was to use women’s health as an excuse to forward their anti-choice agenda? The end justifies the means. Right?

          • Asemodeus

            You have to remember that these people are not really anti-choice, just as long as you side with them they are all for choice. What they are really is forced birthers due to their “christian” need to punish women for the crime of enjoying sex.

            I also do wish that the pro-choice side would step up and provide the actual reason why abortion is legal, which is the 13th amendment. The privacy argument is rather weak since republicans don’t care about privacy, so you will never convince them otherwise.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              If you are so incapable of seeing your enemy’s point of view, and so obsessed with forcing your own stupid, ignorant and hate-ridden misinterpretations on third parties, no wonder you always lose. You don’t have the slightest idea what Christians think and feel, because you have made yourself incapable of perceiving it. Instead, you repeat your pathetic lies – the crime of enjoying sex indeed! – and keep losing. But at least you can cradle yourself in your hatred.

          • fredx2

            The pro choice movement has cyncially used “Women’s health” as a screen for years. At the same time, they have ignored women’s health whenever it was convenient. Like calling for an ambulance when an abortion is botched, but telling them not to turn on the siren and lights, so no one will know that a botched abortion has taken place.

            • Bill S

              The lights and sirens are not needed if the situation is stabilized and follow-up treatment is not time-critical. I would guess that this is the case in those situations. It is the doctor’s call.

      • fredx2

        Protection of the unborn is far from unconstitutional. Even in Roe v. Wade, the court said the state had significant interests in protecting the life of the fetus, especially as it grew and developed. In Casey, the focus was changed. After Casey, the state could not impose an “undue burden” on a women’s attempt to get an abortion. Will a woman’s right to have an abortion be “unduly burdened” by insisting that the facility be prepared to get help for the woman if she has problems during the abortion?

        • Bill S

          Will a woman’s right to have an abortion be “unduly burdened” by insisting that the facility be prepared to get help for the woman if she has problems during the abortion?

          That is a judgment call as to whether the law places an undue burden. It is certainly a severe burden, which it is intended to be. The goal is to make the burden as severe as it can be without having it ruled to be undue. Whether it is more protective of women’s health than the burden it imposes is debatable. The final decision will have to be made by the Supreme Court and will most likely depend on how Justice Kennedy rules.

  • FW Ken

    This was on the news tonight, with predictable comments from Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis. If anything comes out of this latest round of legal wrangling, it should become clear to free-thinking people that the health of women is not the concern of the pro-choice movement. It never was.

    • Bill S

      The other thing that is clear is that the main intent of this law is to close facilities not protect women. Protection of women is the guise used to get the law through the judicial process. Very clever.

      • hamiltonr

        Bill, you are always and forever trying to interpret a law based on what you have personally decided is the motivation of the lawmaker deep in their heart somewhere that only you with your great perception can see.

        This is not how the merits of laws are judged. Legislative intent can and does come into it from time to time, but never — and I repeat never — what the lawmaker feels in the secret recesses of their hearts.

        • Bill S

          You are honest enough to call it a pro life bill. Let’s not kid ourselves. Everyone knows this is about making abortion as difficult as the Supreme Court will allow it to be. It’s to save fetuses. The end justifies the means for the pro life fanatical conservative Christians.

          • hamiltonr

            That can be your personal opinion for opposing a piece of legislation Bill. But it has zip to do with how it will be adjudicated.

            • Bill S

              It will come down to the deciding vote by Justice Kennedy. It will be four liberals vs.four conservatives with no one knowing how Kennedy will vote. Same as the Hobby Lobby case. A lot rests on Kennedy.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    YES! We should celebrate, and I might just wind up supporting Rick Perry for President.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X