It’s been almost one year since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of Texas’ pro-life state laws known as HB 2, which required abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and for abortion facilities to meet the same standards as surgical ambulatory centers. Despite this loss, Texas has continued its pro-life spirit, leading Politico’s Renuka Rayasam to declare that the state is “beating the Supreme Court on abortion.”
Unfortunately, despite the tone of victory in this assertion (which is partly in reference to the state’s persistence in pro-life legislation), the article doesn’t exactly take a positive perspective toward the pro-life movement.
The article includes emailed statements from Whole Woman’s Health CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller, who claims the state has “eroded the fabric of care once in place to serve women and make the current landscape extremely difficult to navigate.” Rayasam reminds readers that Whole Woman’s Health was the victorious plaintiff in the case before the Court. No mention is made, however, of the horrendous conditions and safety concerns at Whole Woman’s Health, which makes it even more ironic for Hagstrom Miller to talk about “care.” (Never mind that abortion is not healthcare.)
Rayasam laments Whole Woman’s Health’s facility closures, which occurred because the abortion conglomerate could not be bothered to maintain health and safety regulations. Unfortunately, the abortion chain with such an abysmal record is set to reopen its Austin location, which had been fined, over the next few weeks. They’re not the only abortion providers which had closed thanks to HB 2, which are now set to reopen:
A few abortion providers are making plans to reopen: Northpark Medical Group in Dallas started performing abortions again in February after a three-year hiatus. Planned Parenthood will reopen its clinic in Waco by the summer. And Whole Woman’s Health, the Supreme Court plaintiff, will reopen soon in Austin.
Remember, these facilities closed because they couldn’t find hospitals willing to give their abortionists admitting privileges and/or refused to make changes to bring their facilities up to ambulatory surgical center standards.
But Rayasam laments the fact that many facilities will never reopen:
For many clinics, the court victory was too late.
More than half the clinics and abortion facilities in the state had already shut down. Just 17 abortion facilities remained in six counties — down from 41 centers in 17 counties in 2012, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, a university group that tracks legislation’s impact on reproductive rights.
Again, no mention is made of the poor records of these facilities. Facilities have been closing throughout the country in large numbers. It’s not merely because of pro-life laws; many facilities close and stay closed because women just don’t need them.
The article continues in its fear mongering, claiming, “access is unlikely to get back to where it was” because “[l]arge parts of Texas, especially in the rural western and southern parts of the state, don’t have abortion clinics and aren’t likely to get any soon.” Abortionist Daniel Grossman, an investigator with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (home to thoroughly debunked pro-abortion studies) and a professor at University of California-San Francisco, called re-opening a facility a “major undertaking,” due to a need for equipment and licenses, as well as “keep[ing] up with new regulations.”
Opening a facility where vulnerable women go to abort their preborn children is a “major undertaking,” because it should be, the above discussion aside. Once again, no mention is made of the dirty equipment abortion facilities in Texas (and elsewhere) have been caught using, or of how abortionists have been practicing without licenses.
Rayasam’s article ends on an emotional note in an attempt to justify abortion — however, what we find is that the woman mentioned, 72-year-old Marsha Correira, speaks out against pro-life laws, claiming she needed to have an “emergency abortion for medical reasons” in 1965 because “she had started to miscarry and needed surgery.”
While we are sorry for Ms. Correira’s loss, that’s not an abortion.
Correira was already miscarrying her child; therefore, the surgery she had — likely in a hospital — was an intervention to save her life. An emergency surgery to save a mother’s life, if it is not the intentional killing of her preborn child, is not an elective abortion, and has never been illegal.
“They keep making laws that are impossible for clinics to meet,” Correira also claimed of legislators.
But if commonsense health and safety regulations are “impossible for clinics to meet,” then perhaps these facilities shouldn’t be open at all.