Post by Daniel on Mar 4, 2016 10:30:59 GMT -5
Abortion is Too Big to Regulate, Too Sacrosanct to Question Its Safety?
By Walter M. Weber
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral argument in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a case dealing with abortion regulation – the biggest abortion case at the high Court in over a decade.
At issue are two safety regulations: the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and the requirement that abortion facilities meet the basic safety standards required of ambulatory surgical centers.
The challenged regulations are fairly modest. What is not modest was the argument several Justices and President Obama’s Justice Department made against the regulations.
For example, Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, argued that the regulations were unconstitutional because (1) other procedures, like colonoscopies and liposuction, are riskier than abortion, and (2) Texas does not set the same safety standards for those procedures as for abortions. Justice Sotomayor, another Obama appointee, picked up the same theme. And Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees (notice a pattern?), protested that there was no health problem here and that abortion is certainly safer than childbirth, rendering these safety regulations unconstitutional.
Personally, I am doubtful that the probe of a colon or the suctioning of body fat is in fact more dangerous than suctioning or cutting a baby out of the mother's womb or injecting that baby or the mother with poisons to cause an abortion. But let's assume that in fact these other procedures pose greater risks: Since when is a safety regulation unconstitutional because it did not start at the most dangerous activity?
continue reading
aclj.org/pro-life/abortion-is-too-big-to-regulate-too-sacrosanct-to-question-its-safety
By Walter M. Weber
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral argument in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a case dealing with abortion regulation – the biggest abortion case at the high Court in over a decade.
At issue are two safety regulations: the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and the requirement that abortion facilities meet the basic safety standards required of ambulatory surgical centers.
The challenged regulations are fairly modest. What is not modest was the argument several Justices and President Obama’s Justice Department made against the regulations.
For example, Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, argued that the regulations were unconstitutional because (1) other procedures, like colonoscopies and liposuction, are riskier than abortion, and (2) Texas does not set the same safety standards for those procedures as for abortions. Justice Sotomayor, another Obama appointee, picked up the same theme. And Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees (notice a pattern?), protested that there was no health problem here and that abortion is certainly safer than childbirth, rendering these safety regulations unconstitutional.
Personally, I am doubtful that the probe of a colon or the suctioning of body fat is in fact more dangerous than suctioning or cutting a baby out of the mother's womb or injecting that baby or the mother with poisons to cause an abortion. But let's assume that in fact these other procedures pose greater risks: Since when is a safety regulation unconstitutional because it did not start at the most dangerous activity?
continue reading
aclj.org/pro-life/abortion-is-too-big-to-regulate-too-sacrosanct-to-question-its-safety
!!
