Obama Judge Rules Wisconsin Regulation Places ‘Burden’ on Mothers Seeking Abortion

Baby Hand pdMADISON, Wisc. — A federal judge appointed to the bench by Barack Obama has struck down a Wisconsin abortion law as unconstitutional, stating that the law places a “burden” on women seeking to end the life of their unborn child.

As previously reported, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker approved Senate Bill 206 (SB206) in July 2013, which called for increased health standards at abortion facilities, including the requirement that abortionists obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. The measure was stated to protect women in the event of injury during the abortion procedure.

Pro-life advocates praised the legislation, but Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately filed a lawsuit against the state, asserting that the regulation will cause at least Affiliated Medical Services to close its doors since local hospitals have been unwilling to grant its abortionist, Dennis Christensen, admitting privileges.

During the trial for the matter, U.S. District Judge William Conley began to spar with Dr. John Thorp, an obstetrician at the University of North Carolina who had been asked by the state to testify in defense of the requirement.

Thorp told the court that he believes that complications from abortions are under-reported, and that he does not find any U.S. studies on maternal deaths from abortion procedures to be completely reliable. Conley then referenced a quote from the late author Mark Twain, stating that there are “lies, [expletive] lies and statistics.”

Thorp replied by stating that he felt chilled by Conley’s comment, which he took as suggesting that Thorp was lying to the court. Conley then backtracked, saying that he did not intend to call Thorp a liar.

However, Conley issued an injunction against the law, and his decision was appealed by the state to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Several months later, Justices Richard Posner and Daniel Manion, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and Justice David Hamilton, appointed by Barack Obama unanimously upheld the injunction, and the case headed back to Conley to rule on the merits of the law.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Friday, Conley issued his final opinion, declaring that that a woman’s desire to obtain an abortion “is substantially outweighed by the burden this requirement will have on women’s health outcomes due to restricted access to abortions in Wisconsin.”

“While the court agrees with the State that sometimes it is necessary to reduce access to ensure safety, this is decidedly not one of those instances,” he wrote. “In particular, the state has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating through credible evidence a link between the admitting privileges requirement and a legitimate health interest.”

“The only reasonable conclusion is that the legislation was motivated by an improper purpose, namely to restrict the availability of abortion services in Wisconsin,” Conley said.

A representative for Gov. Walker told the Wisconsin Sentinel Journal that the state will appeal Conley’s decision.

“Our office will work with the attorney general to appeal this ruling, and we believe the law will ultimately be upheld,” aide Laurel Patrick stated.

There are four abortion facilities in Wisconsin.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • el_chupacabra

    good.

  • TheBBP

    Good on the state in their efforts despite activist judges. Appeal that ruling.

  • Joshua Krug

    The purpose shouldn’t be only to restrict legislation protecting abortion but to abolish it completely. Do these people hear what they are saying? It is a burden to outweigh the life of a child? And merely to limit the option to finding an abortion is an obfuscation to the judicial process? It is. So abort it! Is it judicious to immediately find the end to an unborn child, especially an unwanted, unborn child? How did this ever pass into law in the first place? Moreover, isn’t it the compassionate means to provide for every error? Except, in trying to close their eyes to compassion they have forgotten entirely that they are all alive because of His mercy. And how is it, that, an adult, could even begin, in a position of such integrity, a full grown adult in the position of judge! use profanity in quip? Unequipped for even children’s lip, still sits on a bench ruling the well-being of society based on pen name rocks and literature based in fantasy. When will you people wake up and care for the blood of your brother in places that matter, high or low?

    • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

      The quote doesn’t use an expletive. Look it up. Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) said, “There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

      • Joshua Krug

        It’s either a mockery of the witness, or of his testimony.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Regardless, it’s an awfully immature thing for a judge to say. But, he was appointed by Obama, so the judge may still be in middle school. (See Obama State Department spokespersons.)

    • SimbaLover

      A child is, by definition, born. You can not make a valid point using false equivalencies. “Unborn child” is as ridiculous a misnomer as “undead corpse”. And while you are learning basic biology where a blastocyst is not an embryo which is not a fetus which is not a baby (just as a tadpole is not a frog and an acorn is not an oak)….remember also that the WOMAN is an actual person with rights to her own body.

      • Joshua Krug

        Listen, you subversive worm, the seed produces the tree. The acorn is the oak. Put it in the ground and tell me what it produces – certainly not a tadpole like yourself. And you remember, before the time comes when God no longer takes into consideration your life because your heart has strayed so far from him, Woman has a creator, too, and even if you don’t see Him, take a long look at her parents because she was once inside one and inside the other before vile beasts like you decided to rip apart their insides with your sharpened razors for teeth and tongues that can’t seem to suck down enough blood.

        • SimbaLover

          Wow – name calling? Such a good “christian” you are…and a sure sign that you are unable to make a cogent point, let alone recognize the ones that I provided. For example I never said that an acorn was a tadpole…I was using a comparative technique to demonstrate how things in different stages of development are not like their final state. Now, see how I made a point without resulting to insults? Stop hiding behind your deity as an excuse to treat others who disagree with you poorly and to try to force your agenda onto them. Isn’t your deity capable of taking care if it him/herself?

          • Joshua Krug

            He does so through us and you completely disgrace even your own mother. Hear, those who argue the state of man not taking into consideration the whole man forget the man they consider, from start to finish and even long before and long after.

          • SimbaLover

            How does my support of a woman’s right to choose her own path disgrace my mother? Fact is, that at the time it was not my mothers’s choice to make. If she had been able to choose to abort me I would never had known the difference, and she might still be alive. But then the lives of the women involved never seem to interest your ilk.

          • Joshua Krug

            Because your path is heartless. You don’t care that your giving a right to women which was never yours to begin with, and no rite or right at all, except wrong and passage into very intense emotional suffering, sin, pain and death which you cover up as freedom to be as careless and irresponsible as, well, you choose. You chose to give your support to ending a child’s life, not the women who take your advice, oh, they well take it, and they will suffer for it, too. But it is your choice to throw your weight behind those who would terminate a life while it is still developing. Who gave you that right? First, did you plant the seed? Are you watering it? My ilk? You must be missing a letter. The lives of these women don’t matter to us? So our concern offering them a choice not to take the life of an unborn child, because, well, God has a plan in place that cares for her, the woman, whoever she may be, that concerns her whole life, her entire well-being and that of everyone in her family. So, how are you disgracing your mother? You mean to tell me, that if a woman who was pregnant and troubled came to you, you would tell her that killing the child is an option? Instead of helping her in her needs, whatsoever they may be, be it with necessary food or clothing or support that she is loved making her protected or safe or offering encouragement in doing the right thing like loving her husband and children (and if she is not married to truthfully deal with the situation seeking God’s guidance) you would tell this woman, whoever she may be, you can always take the life of the child? What a devil. And your milk is poison. Which of us can you convict of wrongdoing in the case of those in need, offering them life instead of death and abundant life? How can you make murder taste sweet?

          • SimbaLover

            Are you aware that in order for your body parts to be used after you die, you have to AGREE to it? One can not have their body used without their consent. You would relegate a woman to have fewer rights than a corpse??

            I would tell your hypothetical woman that it is her decision….that is the point…I would not make the decision for her as you would.

            Let’s say that you win and it is decreed that no human has the right to deny the use of their body when the life of another is at stake…..so then we have the basis to force people to donate blood, extra kidneys, lung and liver lobes….do you REALLY want to go down that path?

            If you can not make cogent points without relying on false equivalences and fairy tales, then there is no reasoning with you at all. Fact is that you CHOOSE to believe in a deity – and your belief is largely based on the fact you were born in the US. You are entitled to that belief, but it doesn’t make you right…and it does not give you any power over those who believe differently than you do. The Founding Fathers saw to that when they wisely and intentionally left out all references to religion in the Constitution.

            Finally, if your “god” exists and is so powerful to be worthy of your devotion, then s/he shouldn’t need YOU to help combating what you believe is evil.

          • Joshua Krug

            He doesn’t and that’s the thing: your talking about rights to dispose of a corpse and the right to create one to dispose of.

          • SimbaLover

            No – you completely miss the points…all of them…but then based off of your other comments, I am not surprised.

          • Joshua Krug

            You honestly think you are doing right by telling another to take the life of an unborn child is absolutely normal? And that doesn’t catch your conscience at all?

          • Joshua Krug

            We offer one thing: faith that God loves us which is why He sent His Son to die for us on the cross.

          • SimbaLover

            Your belief – not based on any fact. Your belief stops when it impacts MY rights.

          • Joshua Krug

            No, my faith continues and overcomes every bribe in your hand.

          • SimbaLover

            Your faith is just that….YOURS. You sound as bad as the Taliban wanting to force YOUR chosen belief onto me.

          • Joshua Krug

            ???????????????????????????????????????? It is because of people like you who deny Jesus Christ that men walk into all kinds of sin. No one can see God. But people will be judged on what they do.

          • SimbaLover

            Again – your chosen belief with absolutely NO basis in fact. “Sin” is an invented problem so religion could sell you a solution.

          • Joshua Krug

            Far from truth? An invented problem that someone above brings down the solution? So one man strikes another, causes him harm, even kills him. No sin involved?

          • SimbaLover

            Sin is a religious concept. There are civil laws addressing things like murder and assault and other bad actions by one human to another that predate your bible by thousands and thousands of years. No religion needed. Check out the Code of Hammurabi.

          • Joshua Krug

            Where is Hammurabi, now?

          • SimbaLover

            WTF difference that that make? Again – you’re incapable of processing any rational thought.

            I am providing you with evidence that the issues religions address were dealt with before your religion existed. Unlike your “10 Commandments” (most of which nave never been law in the U.S. BTW), the Code of Hammurabi actually exists and can be seen/touched. It is real and proves that civil laws dealt with societal issues without the need for your – or any other – religion.

  • Rachael_Jean

    Praise God for life!

  • SimbaLover

    Admitting rights – if they are required for abortions, which are among the safest outpatient procedures out there – should be required for ALL outpatient procedures.

    There isn’t any data proving that patients at abortion clinics are receiving substandard care. When it comes to first-trimester abortions, the rate of serious complications — issues that may land a woman in the hospital — is less than 0.05 percent. The risk of dying from an abortion is considerably smaller, estimated as occurring in 0.0006 percentof all legal surgical abortions. To put that in perspective, the risk of death associated with childbirth is about 14 times higher. The mortality rate associated with a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of abortion.

    I don’t see you trying to make colonoscopies more difficult to obtain even though they are far more dangerous than abortion.

    Time to stop abusing the regulatory process using lies to try to get your way.

  • Harry Paul

    Good one..

    Harry Paul
    thousand oaks cosmetic dentist