Ask yourself WHY the proposed law would shut down nearly every abortion clinic in Texas
Can you imagine the unbridled fury that would erupt if pro-life demonstrators created chaos in a state capitol building and made it impossible for the presiding officer to sign a bill expanding access to abortion—a law that had been duly approved by the legislators? That’s what happened in Texas last night, except that it was pro-abortion demonstrators who scuttled a pro-life law, so the media nods quietly in approval.
There’s another respect in which the mainstream media coverage of the Texas story has been remarkably skewed. Most attention has been focused on the fact that the bill that would ban late-term abortions. But with public opinion solidly in favor of such a ban, reporters have pointed to other provisions of the legislation, and noted with apparent horror (as in this AP story) that “the measures would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas.”
What are those measures? Several paragraphs down, the AP story informs us:
The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers. Also, doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles — a tall order in rural communities.
So let’s see: The law would require abortion clinics to pass muster as ambulatory surgical centers, since what they do is ambulatory surgery. And since sometimes things go wrong in surgery, the doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a reasonable distance. Applied to any other medical procedure, these rules would seem perfectly logical, reasonable, prudent exercises of regulatory oversight. But when abortion is in question, prudent oversight is abandoned.
Look at it this way: The AP story lets us know that most Texas abortion clinics are not approved surgical facilities, and most abortionists are not prepared to have women admitted to nearby hospitals in case of an emergency. Incredibly, the people defending this status quo say they’re interested in preserving women’s health!
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($28,039 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Jun. 28, 2013 5:28 PM ET USA
Let's not forget that my state senator, Donna Campbell, was first chair on this bill. She is both a woman and an emergency room doc, and so is constantly prepared to deal with the aftermath of these butchers' "procedures." She's also a freshman senator and defeated one of the most pro-abortion Republicans in the state, from a third-place start!
Posted by: Ken_H -
Jun. 26, 2013 9:05 PM ET USA
It is truly amazing how everyone turns a blind eye to ALL of the horrors of abortion - the killing of the innocent, and the outright lack of reasonable protections for those who do seek to have this "procedure" performed. Not to mention all of the other follow-on effects. And as you say, "They're interested in preserving women's health".