Court Upholds “If We Are Going to Slaughter Children, Let’s at Least Have Neat Aesthetics About It” Law in Texas

Court Upholds “If We Are Going to Slaughter Children, Let’s at Least Have Neat Aesthetics About It” Law in Texas November 1, 2013

Ashley McGuire of the Catholic Association comments:

Yesterday the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to block a key provision of the Texas bill protecting women and babies. The Court’s restoration of the requirement that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital is basic common sense, especially in the post-Gosnell era. And it’s refreshing to see a court affirm common sense rather than the whims of the abortion lobby. Beginning today, nearly one-third of abortion clinics in Texas cannot legally perform abortions. Whether the law will continue to weather the courts, time will tell, but in the meantime – countless lives will be saved and the health of many women will be protected.

Attention Foreign People: We Americans have the right to school the rest of you primitives in Freedom at the point of a gun because *we* are civilized enough to make sure our child slaughters will be done in gleaming white rooms by people with people who have minimal standards of familiarity with Health (somewhere just north of workers in a sausage factory).

Proud to be a Murkan today!

""Do you think those baptisms were valid?"Even if they were invalid, it would put the ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I take it that you think that people in Hell do not suffer or, at ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"You wrote:Veteran of corporate America at its finest. :) I'm grateful the sharp objects and ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'm aware modern Catholics take a more abstract view of Hell than their terrified predecessors. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ganganelli

    Oh please. Countless lives will be saved? I’d bet every last dollar I have that more lives will be lost because of the cuts to food stamps then will ever be saved because women will have to travel to the 2/3rds of clinics that meet the standards.

    • D.T. McCameron

      People die of starvation quite regularly in America? And food stamps are the only way to prevent that?

    • Noah Doyle

      A family of four who gets $668/mo (!!!) in food assistance money will see that cut by….$36!

      No-one is going to die from these cuts.

      (By the way, we feed a family of 5 on $100/week, by planning meals by what’s on sale, using coupons, buying in bulk, and scouring markdowns. $668/mo is luxury.)

  • Sven2547

    Perpetuating the MYTH that more than a tiny fraction of abortions are major medical procedures. This entire law is built on a foundation of half-truths and dishonesty. Par for the course.

    • Stu

      Most emergency rooms are equipped to handle extreme cases that do not make up the majority incidents handled. Heck, you probably have airbags in your car that you have never used.

      • Sven2547

        But most doctor’s offices aren’t emergency rooms. You’re holding ALL abortions to a very high standard, moreso than any other minor medical procedure.

        For example: wisdom teeth removal is a more dangerous, more invasive procedure than the vast majority of abortions, but those are not held to the same stringent requirements. Why? Would you support more rigorous standards for wisdom teeth removal, too?

        Because this isn’t about saving women’s lives, it’s about stifling their choices.

        • John Doe

          …of course, unless something goes terribly wrong, no one dies with wisdom teeth extractions (unlike with abortions, where sometimes more than just the one intended death occurs).

          • Sven2547

            Unless something goes horribly wrong, no pregnant women die from abortions, either. What do you think the mortality rate is for these procedures? You make it sound like fatalities are commonplace. The reason why Gosnell made national news was precisely because of how UNUSUAL that case was.

            • chezami

              Every abortion is a fatality. But you don’t count that because you are ideologically blinded to that.

        • Stu

          Maybe I would be for higher standards for wisdom teeth. Maybe they already exist. Regardless, their is precedent for being prepared for extreme cases.

          The fact that it stifles the ability for people to CHOOSE to slaughter more innocent life is a bonus.

        • Noah Doyle

          ‘stifling their choices’

          To murder their babies? Yes, it does stifle that, I hope.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          or example: wisdom teeth removal is a more dangerous, more invasive
          procedure than the vast majority of abortions, but those are not held to
          the same stringent requirements.

          What stringent requirements? That surgery be performed by a doctor? Check. Wisdom teeth removals are performed by doctors.

  • ganganelli

    Unfortunately for those of us who would like to see fewer abortions, women have a way of shutting these laws right down:

    • Stu

      One step at a time.

      And yes, fewer abortuaries does translate into fewer abortions.

      • ganganelli

        Really? I’d like to see statistics to back that up. My understanding is that abortion rates are lower in places like Northern Europe where it is legal and higher in places like Latin America where it is largely illegal.

        • Stu

          Now you are comparing two entirely different groups.

        • Jrggrop

          Most west European nations actually have fairly tight restrictions on abortions including bans after the 20th week, or approval by a state-appointed board of doctors.

  • orlandobuch

    Wendy Davis is Catholic, as is K Sebelius, as is Kate Michelman of NARAL. These “Catholic” women profess their faith but approve of the killing of millions of defenseless unborn children with no remorse. My blame, probably wrongly, is placed upon John 23 and Vat. 2. We cannot replace our beliefs with our “conscience” as the final arbiter, and saying that sin is “a turning away from God” rather than an offense against the Holy One is horribly wrong. In my mind Vat.2 with its Reformation type advocates many of whom were Protestants did the church wrong and created monsters like Davis and Sibelius and Michelman.

    • Since both Pope John XXIII and Vatican II condemned abortion in the strongest terms, yes, you are clearly wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that sin is a “turning away from God,” since that is clearly what sin is! And a great many Protestants also oppose abortion, so your other argument scarcely works either.

      What is really wrong is that many Catholics became imbued with the spirit of the world in the late 1960’s, right about the time it became fashionable to reject all authority, accept relativism and indulge in hedonism. A heady brew, and the catechesis of the post-conciliar period (based on the “spirit” of Vatican II rather than the Council itself) wasn’t strong enough to head people away from temptation. But really the movement of the Sixties had roots that reached back long before the Sixties, in various philosophical movements. It was these things the Council was trying to counter by giving a positive picture of God’s truth to the world. There are quite a few people to blame for the failure to enact the conciliar vision, including many dissident nuns and priests, but not Blessed John XXIII and not the Council itself.

    • HornOrSilk

      You must hate St Thomas More. It’s all his fault!

  • Eve Fisher

    I know that there are no words awful or evil enough to describe abortion in many people’s narratives. However, I urge you to read the post up at . If you don’t wish to, allow me to quote the central point: “The stigma surrounding being an unwed mother, a single mother, or a poor mother are real, and this stigma contributes to women in these situations choosing abortion. The dominant narrative of the political conservatism in this country urges the unmarried, single, or poor pregnant woman not to “kill her baby” and then calls the unmarried, single, or poor mother lazy, selfish, and irresponsible, and then blames society’s ills on her. There is nothing that is “pro-life” about this narrative.”

    • Benjamin2.0

      and then calls the unmarried, single, or poor mother lazy, selfish, and irresponsible, and then blames society’s ills on her.

      I haven’t heard that part from political conservatism, only planted into their mouths by its political enemies. Republicans have a lot of house cleaning to do before I’ll grace them with even one of my votes, don’t get me wrong, but does anyone really take that sort of arbitrary assignment of others’ motives seriously? Abundantly so, apparently, but should they?
      Narratives are for turn of the 20th century socialists. Banish them to the outer darkness, already. Speak the truth, not facsimiles thereof.