Women Be Advised Seek Abortionist Within 30 Miles Hospital

preferably that the abortion doctor has admitting privileges in case of hemorrhage or other emergency!

ON JUNE 27, 2016, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE RESPONDED TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION IN
WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 5-3, struck down provisions of a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to adhire to and meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. It also required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital (no further away than THIRTY MILES) in case of medical emergencies with certain exceptions. The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals previously rejected facial attacks i.e. "on their face value as unconstitutional" on both provisions.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/june-medical-services-fifth-cir-stay.pdf    Apparently a TEXAS Facility was operating in Louisiana and the DIRECTIVE SAYS LOUISIANA BUT somehow got applied to Texas because the US DISTRICT includes Texas.

EXCERPT from the PDF:

The district court then applied the two-part undue burden test
announced in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
v. Casey which asks whether a regulation has the purpose or effect
of placing an undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion.
505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992). As to the first prong, the district court
found that Plaintiffs

had not established
that the Act has
an improper purpose under existing precedent. On the
second prong, however, the district court concluded that the Act “will have
the effect of placing an undue burden on (i.e. placing a substant
ial obstacle in
the path of) a large fraction of Louisiana women of reproductive age seeking
an abortion.”
June Med. Servs., LLC v. Kliebert


“How shabby are these abortion clinics that they cannot meet the minimum standards other outpatient surgical centers are required to meet, and just how bad are these abortionists that they can’t get admitting privileges at a local hospital?,” stated Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “As we saw with Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, it’s clear that the lucrative abortion industry is not able or willing to police itself and allows filthy, deplorable conditions to go unchecked.”

The provisions struck by the Court today were part of a broader pro-life omnibus package passed by the Texas legislature in 2013. Texas HB2 also included National Right to Life model language to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing great pain when being killed by dismemberment or other late abortion methods. An unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks after fertilization and earlier. That provision of the law was unchallenged in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

“In the years following Roe v. Wade, the Court exhibited extreme hostility to regulation of abortion as a medical procedure,” said Tobias. “However, in its 1992 Casey decision, the Court turned a corner, rejecting the idea of it being ‘the country’s ex officio medical board’. Today, they reversed course and decided that they know better than representatives duly elected by the people of the United States.”

National Right to Life’s Brief of Amicus Curiae in the case is available here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/15-274_amicus_pet_NationalRighttoLifeCommittee.authcheckdam1.pdf

National Right to Life President Carol Tobias and Senior Legislative Counsel Jennifer Popik, J.D. are available to provide further commentary and analysis on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. To arrange an interview, please contact the National Right to Life Communications Department at (202) 626-8825 or mediarelations@nrlc.org.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, NRLC works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

DISCLAIMER: You must not rely on the information on website as an alternative to medical advice from your doctor or other professional healthcare provider.
If you have any specific questions about any medical matter, you should consult your doctor or other professional healthcare provider.
If you think you may be suffering from any medical condition, you should seek immediate medical attention.
You should never delay seeking medical advice, disregard medical advice or discontinue medical treatment because of information on our website.