Supreme Court Decides Not to Rule on Texas Pro Life Law (For Now)

 

The United States Supreme Court has decided not to intervene in the Texas pro life law that requires abortion clinic doctors to have hospital privileges.

That doesn’t mean that the Court has upheld the law. It also doesn’t mean that it has struck it down. It simply means that the Supreme Court has decided to let lower courts work.

I think it’s interesting that a third of Texas abortion clinics have been forced to close because of this law that requires them to meet the same standards as other outpatient surgery facilities and that also requires that the doctors who do abortions have hospital privileges.

I read what I think are bizarre opinions in the comboxes that laws like this are wrong because the people backing them want to limit access to abortion. That sounds a lot like the notion that abortion is everything and women are nothing.

Isn’t the primary argument behind legalizing abortion supposed to be that women will have access to safe and competent medical care? Why should abortionist be given special dispensation to perform surgeries without complying with the medical standards that are required for everything else? Why should doctors without hospital privileges being doing surgery in the first place?

From LifeNews.com:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion today indicating the Supreme Court will not get involved in a case out of Texas that has abortion facilities there appealing a law that has closed numerous abortion clinics that can’t protect women’s health.

In a big victory for pro-life advocates in Texas earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District Court in Austin and restored key portions of a pro-life law in Texas that will ultimately stop abortions and could close abortion clinics. Abortion clinics appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia issued a ruling today saying the high court will not get involved.

“The underlying legal question — whether the new Texas statute is constitutional — is a difficult question. It is a question, I believe, that at least four members of this court will wish to consider irrespective of the 5th Circuit’s ultimate decision,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurring. “I would maintain the status quo while the lower courts consider this difficult, sensitive, and controversial legal matter.”

The justices voted 5-4 to leave Texas’ pro-life provisions in place and the four Democrat-appointed pro-abortion justices all voted to overturn the pro-life measure. Justice Stephen Breyer write a dissenting opinion saying he expected the case to return to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not join an opinion or write their own, but they sided with Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

With the Supreme Court not intervening, the full appeals court has scheduled a hearing on the case for January to consider the lawsuit. The abortion businesses can proceed with the case there or ask another Supreme Court justice to intervene and stop the law from taking effect while the case continues.

China Changes One-Child Policy. It’s Two Children Now.

 

It’s a step in the right direction.

China has announced that it will “ease” its draconian one-child policy. Now, the good government will allow families to have two children.

I am glad they are doing this, but governments do not have any business telling families how many children they can have. Period.

If China — or India, for that matter — wanted to “ease” the pressures that lead to aborting, abandoning and murdering baby girls, they might consider measures to change the age-old practices that created this violent discrimination. I am not talking about coercion. Rather, by addressing issues of parity in inheritance, income and opportunity, much of the “reason” for murdering baby girls would go away.

The article below seems to say that ending the brutal murders of baby girls has nothing to do with this policy change, so don’t hold your breath for these kinds of changes. What the article implies is that China is “easing” their policy (but not relaxing their control over people’s private lives) for economic reasons. It seems the economy flourishes with a growing population to buy goods and services.

In the meantime, I am wondering if this new policy means that now the Chinese government will knock down people’s houses and grab pregnant women off the streets to force abort them after the second baby instead of the first.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - China will ease family planning restrictions nationwide, the government said on Friday, allowing millions of families to have two children in the country’s most significant liberalization of its strict one-child policy in about three decades.

Couples in which one parent is an only child will now be able to have a second child, one of the highlights of a sweeping raft of reforms announced three days after the ruling Communist Party ended a meeting that mapped out policy for the next decade.

The plan to ease the policy was envisioned by the government about five years ago as officials worried that the strict controls were undermining economic growth and contributing to a rapidly ageing population the country had no hope of supporting financially.

A growing number of scholars had long urged the government to reform the policy, introduced in the late 1970s to prevent population growth spiraling out of control, but now regarded by many experts as outdated and harmful to the economy.

Blumenthal Announces Bill to Overturn State Abortion Laws

 

A small group of members of the United States Congress announced plans today to introduce a bill that sounds as if it would completely federalize abortion.

The proposed legislation, by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) is designed to override state regulations on abortion clinics. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA, Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and Lois Frankel (D-FL) are backing the bill.

I know this is going to sound odd, but the thing that disgusts me about this the most is the title they’ve given the bill. They’re calling it the Women’s Health Protection Act. That really raises my feminist ire.

I am so sick of hearing abortion equated with “women’s health.” What, I ask you, about ovarian cancer? Or, rape? Or egg harvesting? How about sex-selected abortion?

Or … dare I say it? … unsafe, unclean abortion processing stations that call themselves clinics and that are run by doctors without hospital privileges who allow non-doctors to perform abortions and prescribe dangerous drugs without proper medical evaluation? How about outpatient surgical clinics — whose only surgery is abortion — that do not have the basic health and safety equipment that is required of every other outpatient surgical clinic?

It is so wonderful that members of the United States Congress want to spare women the egregious requirements of having doctors who are licensed and have hospital privileges and do the procedures themselves rather than farming them out to underlings. I think we need to start doing that for prostate surgery and gall-bladder surgery and appendectomies. Those are “routine” too. Let the nurse do the surgery and use doctors who can’t practice in a nearby hospital. Do it without proper medical equipment.

But wait. This is only women we want to spare the rigors of good medical care while they exercise their “right” to “women’s health” by having abortions.

If you ever wondered how someone like Kermit Gosnell was able to operate for so long, let me explain it you. This is how.

The Gosnells are protected by “abortion advocates” who oppose any and all regulations of abortion clinics.

Do they ever ask about the women who end up in clinics like Gosnells?

Or what about the women who have abortions performed by non-doctors, or who are prescribed RU-486 by a staffer with no ultrasound beforehand?

Bleeding to death from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy evidently doesn’t constitute a “women’s health” problem if the rupture was caused by an abortion drug. That’s what can happen when non-doctors prescribe these drugs without proper medical evaluation.

Why is it onerous to provide women with the same outpatient surgical care that the law requires for every other kind of surgery? Why is abortion so much more important that, ummmm, women’s health?

The emphasis on abortion at the cost of every other right, every other need and all safety precautions is not only demeaning to women, it endangers them. This proposed law is particularly egregious because it is a law against passing a law. When you read the language in the thing, it is not a statute that stands on its own. It is rather a proposal to codify limitations on what laws the states may consider.

That’s far-reaching and rather sinister. The idea has almost limitless applications that go far beyond abortion or any issue. It strikes to the heart of the notion of separation of powers in a federalist government. I expect more legislation by other members of Congress acting on behalf of special interest groups that attempts to shut down the states from enacting laws on all types of subjects, many of which will involve corporations and special interest money.

This particular piece of legislation will not become law for the simple reason that it will not get a hearing in the Republican dominated House of Representatives. However, it will be a campaign fundraiser for the Ds and a campaign issue for the Rs.

The abortion issue is necessary for both political parties. If you don’t know that, you don’t know American politics.

From Senator Blumenthal’s website:

(Washington, DC) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) – joined by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA-27), Marcia Fudge (D-OH-11), and Lois Frankel (D-FL-22) – announced the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013.

The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion by stopping restrictive regulations and laws – such as those in place in states including Texas and Wisconsin – intended to curtail reproductive health services for women.

 

 

Supremes Dump Oklahoma Court Case and I Am Bummed About It

 

There are times when I get up and walk off the House floor.

I go to my office and tell my secretary not to let anyone in. Or, I will go wandering around the rotunda.

But I get away from the mike on my desk and its ever-beckoning invitation to let fly and say whatever I want.

Because what I would want to say in that heated moment is not what I would want to say later, after the dust has settled and I’ve found my inner sane.

I am in a similar situation now, which is why I am not going to weigh in on the only bit of news today that has anything directly to do with me. Because I know that what I would say now is not what I would want to have said later.

Sometimes, it’s better to just keep your mouth shut.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided not to hear a case based on an Oklahoma law concerning the prescribing of drugs used in chemical abortions. I co-authored an amicus curiae brief in favor of this law, along with my friend House Majority Leader Pam Peterson. That’s why I’ve been mum on this case up until now.

I will talk about it more. Later.

For now, here are a few facts (which I will have some thoughts about in the future) from the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court left in place Monday a decision by Oklahoma’s highest court that a major provision of that state’s new abortion law is unconstitutional because it effectively bans all medication abortions.

The high court last summer had tentively agreed to consider the issue but asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court for clarification on exactly what the law proscribes. The Oklahoma court issued an opinion last week that the law would effectively end the early-term practice of medication-induced abortions, and was thus unconstitutional.

Upon receiving the Oklahoma opinion, the Supreme Court then announced Monday that it will not schedule the case for briefing and consideration. As is customary, the justices gave no reason for deciding not to hear the case.

It is clear, however, that there are other ways for the issue to reach the Supreme Court. A number of states have passed similar restrictions on medication abortions, and the issue is working its way through the courts.

Doc Told Bishop’s Mother to Abort Him: “This Baby Will Be a Freak”

The new bishop at the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis was marked for death before he was born.

If his mother had listened to her doctor, she would have aborted her baby. “You’re carrying a freak,” the doctor told Judy Cozzens during her fifth month, “you shouldn’t continue this pregnancy.”

When Mrs Cozzens refused to have an abortion, the doctor told her she would have to get another physician. She did, and the baby was born reasonably healthy. He suffered from the skin disease eczema and developed asthma in his childhood.

Now, he is the new auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis.

From LifeNews.com:

Freak becomes a bishop. That’s the quick and easy storyline describing the path Father Andrew Cozzens took to becoming the next auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

But, here’s the strange part — the person who called him this name was a doctor. And, he pinned this label on Father Cozzens, called Drew throughout his childhood, without even seeing him.

In fact, Father Cozzens was still in his mother’s womb.

This takes some explaining, and so it was that his parents, Jack, 75, and Judy, 69, took a good chunk of time on a recent afternoon recalling the circumstances surrounding the birth — and life — of their No. 2 child, a boy who remarked to another doctor when he was just 4 years old that he was going to “do the Lord’s work” someday.

Troubling news

The drama began during Judy’s fifth month of pregnancy. She was teaching part time at a Catholic school in Connecticut. Her stomach hurt, and she figured she was getting the stomach flu that had been going around the school.

“Then, all of a sudden, I realized I’m getting my pains every five minutes, and I realized I was in labor,” she said. “So, Jack met me at the hospital and we went in. I almost lost [the baby], but they stopped the labor.”

She felt relief, but only momentarily. The tension over her son’s condition skyrocketed the following morning when the doctor came in to talk to her about what was happening.

“He said, ‘You’re carrying a deformed fetus, and you need to not continue with the pregnancy’” she said. “And, I said, ‘What do you mean? This is my baby.’ And, he said, ‘No, you don’t understand. You’re carrying a freak, and you shouldn’t continue with this pregnancy.’” (Read the rest here.)

Why Do Non-Catholics Want So Desperately for the Catholic Church to Change Its Teachings?

 

Why do non-Catholics want so desperately for the Catholic Church to change its teachings?

It’s fascinating, the amount of emotion at least some non-Catholics seem to have about Catholic teaching. I can tell you that when I was in the anti-God period of my life, I did not give one whit what any church taught. I paid them the ultimate diss of not giving a care.

But from what I’ve seen on this blog, there are a large number of people who claim to be atheist or some what-not version of what I was in my anti-God period, who appear to think about Christianity, the Catholic Church in particular, 24/7. They appear to be, in a word, obsessed with the minutiae of Catholic teaching.

If you doubt this, go to some of the atheist blogs. All they ever talk about is God, Christian teaching, and the Bible.

There are a few issues in particulate that really rev their engines. They are:

  • Who gets to take communion in Catholic Churches (which they insist, even while they debate this endlessly, is just a superstition and a wafer.)
  • Why the Church won’t affirm gay marriage.
  • Why the Church won’t say it’s ok for them kill people they want to kill (the unborn, the elderly, disabled, etc.)

When someone confronts them with the obvious inconsistency implied in their obsessive demands that a Church they claim is a stupid cult alter teachings that they claim are based on a myth, they start denouncing Catholics for using their rights as American citizens to vote and advocate according to their consciences.

It’s as if it offends them that Catholics have the same rights to vote, free assembly and to petition their government as other citizens. I suppose it’s true that it does offend them. Because one takeaway I get from reading the comments from most (not all, there are a couple of clear exceptions) of these people is that they are, at base, bullies.

I also think that the core reason they keep coming around here to drop off their load of insults (most of the truly insulting ones never see the light of day on this blog) is that they are either mental on some level, or, whether they will admit it or not, they are God haunted people who desperately want what the Church offers, which is peace with God, eternal life and a spiritual home. It’s just that they can’t bring themselves to go to God on God’s terms. They want Him — meaning His Church — to come to them on their terms.

These are people who refuse to be forgiven for their sins. What they want is to have the Almighty ratify their sins. They are obsessed with finding, not absolution, but vindication, from a Church they claim they believe is a fraud.

However, that’s just my reaction. Yours may be different. I’m going to throw this open for discussion.

Why do you think nonbelievers are so obsessed with the Catholic Church?

A Mother’s Prayer

May they all have birthdays.

YouTube Preview Image

Amazing Things Babies Do in the Womb

 

Dedicated to loving parents everywhere.

YouTube Preview Image

Sex Selected Abortions in Britain: What Does the CPS Decision Mean?

 

As an American, I find British law confusing, which, I expect is equally true of the British when they try to consider American law.

My understanding of the current legal situation concerning sex selected abortion in Britain is, to put it in American terms, that the agency charged with enforcing the statute has determined that it is, if a single loophole is followed, unenforceable.

The decision was based on a request for prosecution of two doctors who agreed to perform a sex selected abortion that was part of an undercover operation by a British newspaper. The exception on which the decision not to prosecute these two doctors was based is a provision in British law that allows abortions for reason of the baby’s gender whenever two physicians certify that “continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman or any existing children of her family.”

That sounds very much like the health of the mother exceptions that have allowed terminations of pregnancies right up until the baby is born here in the US. In fact, it sounds as if sex-selected abortion was already legal in Britain, even before the Crown Prosecution Service decision not to prosecute under this law. If that is true, and the law I’ve seen reads like it is, then the CPS decision was a formality.

The report from the CPS talks about the difficulty the prosecution would face proving that the doctors in question were acting in bad faith. It describes this situation as “a narrow basis for any prosecution.”

Because of these things, the CPS declined to prosecute the two doctors in question. It also, so far as I understand these things, gave an explanation as to why any prosecutions for sex-selected abortion would be extremely unlikely.

In America, we would say that the CPS had made a de facto decision legalizing same-sex abortion in Britain. I’ve read comments, including a circular and  mush-mouthed statement from the Prime Minster, saying that there is no such thing as a de facto decision in British law. That leaves me wondering what they call it.

If the agency charged with enforcing a law says that they won’t enforce it because it is unenforceable, then it sounds to me like this agency has, de facto, repealed the law. In addition, if the quotations supplied by the CPS in their discussions of this decision are both accurate and inclusive of the British law on sex selected abortion, I think they are probably right. This law is unenforceable except in the rare case where a doctor is stupid enough to do a sex-selected abortion without getting another doctor to sign off on it for him or her.

So far as I know, there has not been any legislation passed in Britain formally legalizing sex-selected abortion. However, when the agency charged with enforcing a law says that they will not enforce it because the law is unenforceable, then it sounds like it’s been repealed to me.

Baby girl3

Britian’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, affirmed this even as he denied it when he answered a question that included the statement “a female fetus in the womb today is more vulnerable than she was last week” by saying

… But in our country we do have independent prosecuting authorities. It’s very importance that they look at the evidence and they make a decision on the basis of likelihood of getting a conviction and the public interest in making a case and taking it to court. That’s how things have to work in our country, but I share her concern about what we’ve read and what has happened and it’s absolutely right that professional action should be considered as well.

For those who aren’t fluent in the language, that’s political-speak for “Yes.”

The facts as I know them — and I will be happy to write about any difference in facts as they pop up — is that sex selected abortion is now free of the threat of prosecution in Britain so long as two doctors sign off on the sex selected abortion in accordance with the parameters established under the law.

I would guess that it is possible that this law will be re-written to make it enforceable in the future. However, that may not happen. I can not predict.

Quotes from CPS communications about the decision, as well as links to the original documents, are below:

BABY GIRL4

According to a letter from Keir Starmer, who is the Director of Public prosecutions to Dominic Grieve, MP, the loophole in the law is that:

The law does not, in terms, expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions; rather it prohibits any abortion carried out without two medical practitioners having formed a view, in good faith, that the health risks of continuing with a pregnancy outweigh those of termination. 

… the discretion afforded to doctors under the current law in assessing the risk to the mental or physical health of a patient is wide and, having consulted an experienced consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, it appears that there is no generally accepted approach among the medical profession.

There is also the difficulty that, on its face, the HSA/1 form which doctors are required to use to certify their assessment of a patient, does not require them to see or examine the patient before forming a view. Against that background, it would be very difficult for a jury to assess what may or may not be an “adequate” assessment by the doctor and there is a real risk that different juries would reach different decisions on essentially the same facts. 

Baby girl 2
The Crown Prosecution Service followed this letter with a more extensive analysis of the situation on their web site(emphasis mine):

Procuring a miscarriage is an offence contrary to section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. However, section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 provides that a person should not be guilty of an offence when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, inter alia, that “the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family”.

Thus the law does not, in terms, expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions; rather, it prohibits any abortion carried out without two medical practitioners having formed a view, in good faith, that the health risks (mental or physical) of continuance outweigh those of termination. This gives a wide discretion to doctors in assessing the health risks of a pregnant patient.

The BMA’s Handbook of Ethics and Law, published in February 2012, gives the following guidance, which is the same as guidance published in 2007:

Abortion on the grounds of fetal sex

 

Fetal sex is not one of the criteria for abortion listed in the Abortion Act and therefore termination on this ground alone has been challenged as out with the law. There may be circumstances, however, in which termination of pregnancy on grounds of fetal sex would be lawful. It has been suggested that if two doctors, acting in good faith, formed the opinion that the pregnant woman’s health, or that of her existing children, would be put at greater risk than if she terminated the pregnancy, the abortion would arguably be lawful under section 1(1) (a) of the Abortion Act. (see page 283) [Morgan D (2001) Issues in medical law and ethics, Cavendish Publishing, London, pp147-9]. The Association believes that it is normally unethical to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of fetal sex alone, except in cases of severe sex-linked disorders. The pregnant woman’s views about the effect of the sex of the fetus on her situation and on her existing children should nevertheless be carefully considered. In some circumstances doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects are so severe as to provide legal and ethical justification for a termination. They should be prepared to justify the decision if challenged.” [p.287]

… The prosecution would have to be in a position to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the assessments carried out by the doctors was carried out in bad faith or carried out in such a way that fell below a standard which any reasonable doctor would consider adequate. In the absence of any considered medical guidance it is extremely difficult for the prosecution to undertake this exercise. Equally, it would be very difficult for a jury to assess what may or may not be an “adequate” assessment by the doctor. 

It is questionable whether the interests of justice are served in bringing a prosecution where such levels of uncertainty exist.  In the absence of guidance a jury would have no yardstick by which they could measure the conduct of any doctor facing prosecution.  Where there is such uncertainty there is a serious risk that different juries would reach different decisions on essentially the same facts.

… As with the evidential stage of the Code test, the public interest in this case is finely balanced. But, if the narrow basis of any prosecution is kept firmly in mind, the public interest factors against prosecution outweigh those in favour. In reaching this conclusion, we fully consulted with the police who agreed with us about the public interest.

For additional information check out Frank Weathers at Why I Am Catholic.

UK Legalizes Sex Selected Abortions

 

It began — at least for me — when Public Catholic reader Manny shared this link.

That led me to a google search where I found links from

National Right to Life

Belfast Telegraph

Susan B Anthony List

Zenit

Breitbart

Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service

all of which say that Manny’s link is correct. The UK has done one of those this-is-how-we-interpret-the-law laws that now allows doctors to perform sex-selected abortions.

I’m not going to comment about this right now. I feel like somebody hit me and I need to get my breath back.

However, just for your reading pleasure, I’ll include one last link. It’s from a “feminist” group explaining how killing baby girls is … well … too “complex” to be illegal. They think that it’s basically ok so long as it’s the woman’s choice to kill her baby because the baby is a little girl.

That’s feminism???

To paraphrase Lily Tomlin, I try to be cynical folks. But I just can’t keep up.

Baby girl 2


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X