In 1998, Herron saw Dr. John Biskind at an Arizona abortion facility. Biskind successfully aborted her baby, but he knew something was off: an hour and forty five minutes later, his patient still wasn’t alert. That didn’t prompt him to stick around through; he clocked out less than an hour after that to visit his tailor. The next time a doctor laid eyes on Lou Ann Herron, she was being wheeled into an emergency room.
Herron bled to death from a tear in her uterus. While the law in question wouldn’t have prevented her injuries, one of its provisions would have required Biskind to remain on site until Herron was released. Another would have demanded that he have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Requiring a physician to have admitting privileges isn’t unusual; it’s standard at clinics offering all kinds of medical services. Admitting privileges allow a doctor to bypass the ER and make sure the hospital knows a patient’s condition ahead of time. That’s important when you’re suffering from internal injuries, a lesson the abortion industry has taught too many women.
Yet another provision requires abortion centers to meet the same standards as other surgical facilities. Those in the abortion industry claim this expectation is too onerous–probably because they can’t even meet the standards that already exist. The abortion chain that’s suing Texas has been cited for multiple health code violations, including the use of rusty equipment, something that “had the likelihood to cause infection.”
Additional citations were given when staff didn’t “perform the correct procedure for the sterilization of the surgical instruments,” a potential cause of “infection control issues.” The outfit was also fined for not having “a midlevel provider, a registered nurse, or a licensed vocational nurse” at one of its locations.
Yes, Texas’ law does address an undue burden: the burden of burying a loved one. Time and again, abortionists have put that burden on families across the country. The Supreme Court should let lawmakers lift it.