Planned Parenthood displayed its motive to protect its bottom line today when the organization filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Texas to block provisions specifically designed to preserve maternal health during abortion procedures. The provisions, part of the pro-life omnibus bill (aka HB-2) were signed into law by Texas Governor Rick Perry on July 18, after a drawn-out legislative battle which was disrupted by law-breaking abortion advocates.

The legislation being challenged by abortion advocates mandates that physicians obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius of their abortion facility, and blocks facility personnel who are not physicians from being allowed to administer dangerous abortion-inducing drugs called the RU-486. The first measure was established to ensure that, in the case of a woman’s life-threatening emergency during an abortion procedure, there would be no hindrance to her being admitted into a hospital facility equipped to offer her care.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a statement in April of this year affirming the need for hospital admitting privileges (although the statement concludes by clarifying that it does not think abortion facilities should be singled out in this requirement; all surgical centers, it believes, should be required to have a relationship with a nearby hospital in case of life-threatening emergencies):

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes physicians who provide medical and surgical procedures, including abortion services, in their offices, clinics, or freestanding ambulatory care facilities should have a plan to ensure prompt emergency services if a complication occurs and should establish a mechanism for transferring patients who require emergency treatment.

Planned Parenthood, an organization which claims to stand for women’s rights and yet simultaneously seeks to block provisions which protect maternal health, was joined today by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), organization which, like Planned Parenthood, have consistently promoted abortion over women’s health concerns in the past. The president of CRR bemoaned the provisions, saying:

Today’s lawsuit is a united strike back against the hostile politicians who have made clear their willingness to sacrifice the constitutional rights, health and even lives of Texas women in support of their extremist ideological agenda.

Given the above ACOG statement, it is unclear how maternal protection provisions harm the lives of women. The executive director of the ACLU partook in the conspiracy theory that pro-life advocates’ concern for women’s health is really a secret ploy to effect her ultimate ruin:

This law is part of a coordinated national strategy to shut down women’s health centers and outlaw abortion all across the country.

Reuters, summarizing a conference call on which Planned Parenthood, CRR, and the ACLU described their motives for bring the lawsuit against Texas, said this:

Opponents contend the parts of the law challenged in court would make it more difficult for women to get an abortion in rural areas of the vast state. They also say that abortion is a relatively safe procedure that requires very few women to be admitted to a hospital.

Apparently those “very few” women’s lives are not worth the inconvenience to abortionists in Texas who will have to comply with regulations before being allowed to continue their gruesome profession. This inconvenience to abortionists may also affect the bottom line for Planned Parenthood and other abortion practices. Planned Parenthood’s motto is “Care. No matter what.” Perhaps it should be — as Steven Ertelt suggests— “Abortion. No matter what.”

Texas Right to Life director Elizabeth Graham, who was present for every second of the grueling but ultimately successful pro-life battle this legislative session, had this to say about the desperation of the pro-abortion community confirmed by today’s lawsuit:

The lawsuit solidifies the historic nature of House Bill 2.  By leaving alone the Preborn Pain section of House Bill 2 and challenging the clinic regulations of the bill, the abortion industry is signaling some major losses when House Bill 2 is properly implemented.  The abortion crowd knows that they can’t win arguments about killing babies who feel pain, but these extremists are desperate to keep playing fast and loose with women’s health, resisting all increased health and safety standards required by House Bill 2.   Never before have Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Center for Reproductive Rights joined their anti-life forces in such an orchestrated manner, indicating that House Bill 2 will significantly impact the bottom line of the abortionist’s blood money.  Texas Right to Life has full confidence in our Pro-Life Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already announced his determination and commitment to defend this landmark law.

Planned Parenthood displayed its motive to protect its bottom line today when the organization filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Texas to block provisions specifically designed to preserve maternal health during abortion procedures. The provisions, part of the pro-life omnibus bill (aka HB-2) were signed into law by Texas Governor Rick Perry on July 18, after a drawn-out legislative battle which was disrupted by law-breaking abortion advocates.

The legislation being challenged by abortion advocates mandates that physicians obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius of their abortion facility, and blocks facility personnel who are not physicians from being allowed to administer dangerous abortion-inducing drugs called the RU-486. The first measure was established to ensure that, in the case of a woman’s life-threatening emergency during an abortion procedure, there would be no hindrance to her being admitted into a hospital facility equipped to offer her care.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a statement in April of this year affirming the need for hospital admitting privileges (although the statement concludes by clarifying that it does not think abortion facilities should be singled out in this requirement; all surgical centers, it believes, should be required to have a relationship with a nearby hospital in case of life-threatening emergencies):

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes physicians who provide medical and surgical procedures, including abortion services, in their offices, clinics, or freestanding ambulatory care facilities should have a plan to ensure prompt emergency services if a complication occurs and should establish a mechanism for transferring patients who require emergency treatment.

Planned Parenthood, an organization which claims to stand for women’s rights and yet simultaneously seeks to block provisions which protect maternal health, was joined today by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), organization which, like Planned Parenthood, have consistently promoted abortion over women’s health concerns in the past. The president of CRR bemoaned the provisions, saying:

Today’s lawsuit is a united strike back against the hostile politicians who have made clear their willingness to sacrifice the constitutional rights, health and even lives of Texas women in support of their extremist ideological agenda.

Given the above ACOG statement, it is unclear how maternal protection provisions harm the lives of women. The executive director of the ACLU partook in the conspiracy theory that pro-life advocates’ concern for women’s health is really a secret ploy to effect her ultimate ruin:

This law is part of a coordinated national strategy to shut down women’s health centers and outlaw abortion all across the country.

Reuters, summarizing a conference call on which Planned Parenthood, CRR, and the ACLU described their motives for bring the lawsuit against Texas, said this:

Opponents contend the parts of the law challenged in court would make it more difficult for women to get an abortion in rural areas of the vast state. They also say that abortion is a relatively safe procedure that requires very few women to be admitted to a hospital.

Apparently those “very few” women’s lives are not worth the inconvenience to abortionists in Texas who will have to comply with regulations before being allowed to continue their gruesome profession. This inconvenience to abortionists may also affect the bottom line for Planned Parenthood and other abortion practices. Planned Parenthood’s motto is “Care. No matter what.” Perhaps it should be — as Steven Ertelt suggests— “Abortion. No matter what.”

Texas Right to Life director Elizabeth Graham, who was present for every second of the grueling but ultimately successful pro-life battle this legislative session, had this to say about the desperation of the pro-abortion community confirmed by today’s lawsuit:

The lawsuit solidifies the historic nature of House Bill 2.  By leaving alone the Preborn Pain section of House Bill 2 and challenging the clinic regulations of the bill, the abortion industry is signaling some major losses when House Bill 2 is properly implemented.  The abortion crowd knows that they can’t win arguments about killing babies who feel pain, but these extremists are desperate to keep playing fast and loose with women’s health, resisting all increased health and safety standards required by House Bill 2.   Never before have Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Center for Reproductive Rights joined their anti-life forces in such an orchestrated manner, indicating that House Bill 2 will significantly impact the bottom line of the abortionist’s blood money.  Texas Right to Life has full confidence in our Pro-Life Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already announced his determination and commitment to defend this landmark law.