Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding Louisiana’s admitting privileges law. The case, June Medical Services v. Gee, takes aim at The Unsafe Abortion Act, and thanks to a recent brief filed by over 200 Congressional lawmakers, has gotten attention from the abortion industry, which is now panicking.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise led 166 House Republicans and 39 Senate Republicans, as well as two Democrats, in filing an amicus brief in support of the pro-life law, arguing that the court must not only uphold the law, but also to “provide clarity regarding the bounds of the Government’s ability to safeguard the lives and health of their citizens.” Previously, hundreds of attorneys who have had abortions filed a brief asking the Court to overturn the law. Yet it’s this brief that’s raising eyebrows, as the abortion industry worries that it could mean the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade, thanks to this portion of the brief (emphasis added):

With regard to June Medical’s question presented, Amici submit that while the Fifth Circuit understandably struggled with the meaning of the “undue burden” standard put forth in Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the court appropriately distinguished Hellerstedt on a record that reflected “greatly dissimilar” facts and a demonstrable absence of burden on abortion access due to the operation of Louisiana Act 620.

Finally, Amici respectfully suggest that the Fifth Circuit’s struggle to define the appropriate “large fraction” or determine what “burden” on abortion access is “undue” illustrates the unworkability of the “right to abortion” found in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and the need for the Court to again take up the issue of whether Roe and Casey should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled.

Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, as well as others in the abortion industry, didn’t waste any time sounding the alarm:

Yet while the abortion industry panics over its ability to make money, the entire reason for the law — the safety of women — is being completely ignored, which is why the law was introduced in the first place.

READ: The abortion industry wants abortion legal even if it means women are unsafe

Most Americans support higher medical standards for abortion facilities, and they’re sorely needed. As the brief pointed out, Louisiana’s abortion facilities, including June Medical, “have a long history of health and safety violations, and Louisiana abortion doctors have a long history of professional disciplinary actions and substandard medical care. The brief also argues that there is an inherent conflict of interest between abortion facilities and their patients when it comes to health and safety standards.

“[J]une Medical cannot be presumed to enjoy a ‘close’ relationship with its patients when it comes to legal challenges brought against the very laws the State passes for the protection of the patients’ health and safety, and it should not be deemed to have third-party standing,” the brief reads, adding, “It is impossible for abortion clinics and doctors to share or represent the interests of their patients when they seek to eliminate the very regulations designed to protect their patients’ health and safety.”

June Medical Services, for example, was found to have a slew of safety issues, including not monitoring patients properly, not getting a proper medical history, not making sure patients were stable before discharging them, not properly sanitizing instruments after using them, and more. The Louisiana Department of Justice also reported that there was a “disturbing pattern” of covering up rapes, including at least 66 abortions committed on girls aged 11, 12, and 13.

Admitting privileges aren’t put into place simply to be mean. They’re there because abortion facilities, such as in Louisiana, are known to be unsafe. Patient abandonment, where a patient is left to the local emergency room for complications while the abortionist does nothing, is common, and while it’s viewed as unethical by the medical community, the abortion industry doesn’t want to be held to the same standards as legitimate health care providers. They claim that Roe v. Wade is necessary to keep women from dying in back-alley abortions, but if that is true, then why fight the standards and regulations that would do exactly that?

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!

Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding Louisiana’s admitting privileges law. The case, June Medical Services v. Gee, takes aim at The Unsafe Abortion Act, and thanks to a recent brief filed by over 200 Congressional lawmakers, has gotten attention from the abortion industry, which is now panicking.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise led 166 House Republicans and 39 Senate Republicans, as well as two Democrats, in filing an amicus brief in support of the pro-life law, arguing that the court must not only uphold the law, but also to “provide clarity regarding the bounds of the Government’s ability to safeguard the lives and health of their citizens.” Previously, hundreds of attorneys who have had abortions filed a brief asking the Court to overturn the law. Yet it’s this brief that’s raising eyebrows, as the abortion industry worries that it could mean the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade, thanks to this portion of the brief (emphasis added):

With regard to June Medical’s question presented, Amici submit that while the Fifth Circuit understandably struggled with the meaning of the “undue burden” standard put forth in Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the court appropriately distinguished Hellerstedt on a record that reflected “greatly dissimilar” facts and a demonstrable absence of burden on abortion access due to the operation of Louisiana Act 620.

Finally, Amici respectfully suggest that the Fifth Circuit’s struggle to define the appropriate “large fraction” or determine what “burden” on abortion access is “undue” illustrates the unworkability of the “right to abortion” found in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and the need for the Court to again take up the issue of whether Roe and Casey should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled.

Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, as well as others in the abortion industry, didn’t waste any time sounding the alarm:

Yet while the abortion industry panics over its ability to make money, the entire reason for the law — the safety of women — is being completely ignored, which is why the law was introduced in the first place.

READ: The abortion industry wants abortion legal even if it means women are unsafe

Most Americans support higher medical standards for abortion facilities, and they’re sorely needed. As the brief pointed out, Louisiana’s abortion facilities, including June Medical, “have a long history of health and safety violations, and Louisiana abortion doctors have a long history of professional disciplinary actions and substandard medical care. The brief also argues that there is an inherent conflict of interest between abortion facilities and their patients when it comes to health and safety standards.

“[J]une Medical cannot be presumed to enjoy a ‘close’ relationship with its patients when it comes to legal challenges brought against the very laws the State passes for the protection of the patients’ health and safety, and it should not be deemed to have third-party standing,” the brief reads, adding, “It is impossible for abortion clinics and doctors to share or represent the interests of their patients when they seek to eliminate the very regulations designed to protect their patients’ health and safety.”

June Medical Services, for example, was found to have a slew of safety issues, including not monitoring patients properly, not getting a proper medical history, not making sure patients were stable before discharging them, not properly sanitizing instruments after using them, and more. The Louisiana Department of Justice also reported that there was a “disturbing pattern” of covering up rapes, including at least 66 abortions committed on girls aged 11, 12, and 13.

Admitting privileges aren’t put into place simply to be mean. They’re there because abortion facilities, such as in Louisiana, are known to be unsafe. Patient abandonment, where a patient is left to the local emergency room for complications while the abortionist does nothing, is common, and while it’s viewed as unethical by the medical community, the abortion industry doesn’t want to be held to the same standards as legitimate health care providers. They claim that Roe v. Wade is necessary to keep women from dying in back-alley abortions, but if that is true, then why fight the standards and regulations that would do exactly that?

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!