Appeals Court Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Requiring Abortionists to Obtain Admitting Privileges

baby and motherMADISON, Wisc. — A federal appeals court has struck down a Wisconsin law requiring abortionists to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital, with a judge nominated to the bench by then-President Ronald Reagan writing the opinion on behalf of the majority.

As previously reported, Gov. Scott Walker approved Senate Bill 206 (SB206) in July 2013, which called for increased health standards at abortion facilities, including the admitting privileges requirement. 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.

In March, U.S. District Judge William Conley, appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, sided with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, 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.”

Conley’s opinion was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision 2-1 on Tuesday. Judge Richard Posner, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority.

“What makes no sense is to abridge the constitutional right to abortion on the basis of spurious contentions regarding women’s health — and the abridgment challenged in this case would actually endanger women’s health,” he wrote.

Posner said that laws like Wisconsin’s regulation serve as an indirect effort make abortions more difficult to obtain.

  • Connect with Christian News

“They may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet as in this case the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” he opined.

He was joined by Obama appointee David Hamilton in his decision.

Judge David Manion, appointed by Ronald Reagan, was the lone dissenter.

“The solution to the plaintiffs’ problems is that they find more qualified doctors, not that the state relax — or that we strike down as unconstitutional — precautions taken by the state to protect the health and safety of pregnant women who have chosen to end their pregnancies,” he wrote.

But the case may not be over as the U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear a case out of Texas surrounding whether the state may require abortionists to obtain admitting privileges and operate with the same standards as surgical facilities.

“The advancement of the abortion industry’s bottom line shouldn’t take precedence over women’s health, and we look forward to demonstrating the validity of these important health and safety requirements in court,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement.

Some believe that the abortion industry should be outlawed altogether instead of being regulated.


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
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Bravo for the court!

    • StanW

      And when women die in Gosnell-like clinics, what will you say them?

      • gizmo23

        Why would that happen just because a doctor doesn’t have admitting privileges?
        A women can still go to a hospital and may or may not be admitted depending on the circumstance.

        • StanW

          Doctors do invasive procedures like abortion but don’t have privileges at the hospital are dangerous.

          • gizmo23

            They can send patients to hospitals they just can’t admit them.
            If the pro life movement cared they would require hospitals give admitting privlages. But we all know this isn’t about womens health safety

          • StanW

            Yes, they can, but will they?

            Gosnell COULD have sent the women he butchered to the hospital but did not. That is what you and your ilk want.

          • gizmo23

            Gosnell was a murderer convicted by a court. There is a vast difference
            How do you know what I want?

          • StanW

            Gosnell was an ABORTIONIST that killed women and children while performing state-sanctioned ABORTIONS. And he was protected for years by people just like you that are so pro-abortion that you don’t care how many women die, so long as there are not restrictions on abortion.

          • gizmo23

            You have no idea what I believe or think

          • StanW

            Your outlandish lies in defense of abortion tells me what you think.

          • gizmo23

            Jedi mind powers?

          • StanW

            Do you think it is a secret that you are pro-abortion?

          • gizmo23

            I am not. I just think the pro life movement is misguided

          • StanW

            Explain.

          • gizmo23

            They have done little to mitigate the reasons women have abortions. They don’t seem to be at all concerned about the well being of the women that find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.
            There focus appears to be on political power and getting people elected, which hasn’t worked. Aligning the movement with a particular political party has worked against pro life groups.
            They should be working at changing laws concerning abortions and at the same time pushing for laws that assure that women will not lose income, jobs, or healthcare if they keep their babies. Why not pushing for paid family leave that all others countries have except 3, including the USA? How about making adoption easier, Bush cut funding for adopting disabled babies BTW, and cheaper. Stop fighting birth control mandates!
            Stop calling women evil murderers!
            Abortion is a separate issue from sex, stop linking the 2.
            Bottom line is that while we say we do we really don’t value children and are more concerned with profit and money.

          • StanW

            It amuses me that pro-aborts like you will continue to tell the outright LIE that people like me do not care about children after they are born, or that we do not care about the mothers of these children ever.

            Live well in your fantasy world as the pro-abortion advocate that you are.

          • gizmo23

            Done with this

          • StanW

            Fine with me, I accept your admission of defeat.

          • gizmo23

            Not at all. You just believe somethings about me and no matter what I say you about myself you won’t believe so there is no point in our discussion.

          • StanW

            People that go out of there way to support the pro-abortion position, and then tell me that they are not pro-abortion do not ever deserve to be taken serious.

  • tyler

    I’m glad the court made this decision.

  • gizmo23

    If the pro life movement really cared they would insist that hospitals give clinics admitting privileges