U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law as Creating ‘Undue Burden on Abortion Access’

Supreme-CourtWASHINGTON (Reuters) The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics.

The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to “consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer.”

Deferring to state legislatures over “questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court’s case law,” Breyer added.

Three conservative justices – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito – dissented.

By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states.

  • Connect with Christian News

Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women’s health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19.

Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers.

The Texas law required abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges,” a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care.

The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains.

‘SUBSTANTIAL OBSTACLE’

“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Breyer wrote in the ruling. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”

Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticized the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court “simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases.”

The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.

Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, “Every day Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity – and today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.”

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling “a victory for women in Texas and across America.”

“This fight isn’t over: The next president has to protect women’s health. Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights,” she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face “some sort of punishment.” The presidential election is Nov. 8.

Abortion opponents denounced the ruling.

“It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement.

Republican Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now “free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open – even under substandard conditions –outweighs the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first.”


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
  • GibbyD

    This decision means that abortion baby killing clinics do not need to be sanitary or meet any standards that would provide protections against infections and or malpractice related to insufficient facilities and equipment. I guess people including supreme court justices that do not care anything about killing innocent unborn girls and boys , would also not care about the health and life of those women that come to those clinics. Unless The USA repents , God will destroy us and damn forever those who continue these egregious abominable sins.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

      Wrong. Abortion facilities need to be sanitary. However, the do not need to be the equal of ambulatory surgery facilities. Moreover, the Court determined that requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital was unnecessary.

      • Kelly Samuelson

        Funny how you didn’t address the ‘killing innocent unborn girls and boys’ part

        • Ambulance Chaser

          The nature of abortion was not at issue in this case. It has been settled law for over 40 years that abortion is not “killing innocent unborn girls and boys.” We don’t relitigate every old, settled aspect of a legal issue every time it comes before a court.

          If we had to start from zero every single time, we would never get anything done in courts.

          • GibbyD

            No law is “settled” when it is wrong to begin with. The 1973 ruling by the Supreme Court did NOT decide that abortion was not killing innocent unborn girls and boys”. The court and lawyers at the time knew that it was indeed the killing of innocent unborn girls and boys, it was just that they were going to allow them to do it without criminally being responsible for doing it. What it decided was that under the guise of “privacy” that they were allowed to do it, which was and is the killing of innocent unborn girls and boys.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who says when it’s wrong to begin with? And what is your evidence that the Court knew it was “the killing of innocent unborn girls and boys?”

          • GibbyD

            Allot has been learned about unborn children since 1973. Are you seriously saying that the court did not know that if an abortion was not performed that a baby would be born? What do you think they thought was inside a mother growing daily ? The courts then and now know that abortion is the killing of the life of an unborn innocent girl or boy. A price will be paid after this life for those that participated in the slaughter and “holocaust” of the millions of lives that were ended. God calls it murder. At the Judgment you will not stand before a court made of mere men but before a Holy God, The LORD Jesus. The 1973 ruling was based, some weird way , on the right to privacy. God sees the hidden things done in darkness so there is no use trying to hide from Him. He knows what you do and no one can keep “private” the sins that He knows you commit and that separate you from Him. The simple answer is found with His solution. ” Repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ” ( Acts 20:21)KJB. Not only will God forgive your sin but also remember it no more. ————————– “For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more.”( Hebrews 8:12)KJB. This promise is for both believing Jews and Gentiles in The New Covenant and Testament .

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, none of that answers my question.

          • GibbyD

            Yes it does.

      • GibbyD

        There are already hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths at ambulatory surgery facilities but you think it is ok for abortion clinics have even less safety .

        • Ambulance Chaser

          At oral argument, the attorney for Texas, Scott Keller, was asked whether there has ever been an injury that the law in question would have prevented. He answered that, to his knowledge, there was no record of any such injury.

    • This style ten and six

      Since the vast majority of abortions are effected by taking a pill, why do all centers require the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers?

      • GibbyD

        Even taking a pill can have adverse reactions that would require special treatment and or access to an advanced surgical center.

        • Jalapeno

          Why do you think that doctors are against requiring them to have those standards?

          What benefit do you think things such as requiring admitting privileges has?

          • GibbyD

            $$$$$$$$$ The killing clinics would have had to upgrade and made their baby killing businesses safer for women. They saw that as cutting too much in to their profits so they closed up. Now the hazardous unsafe infection spreading dirty clinics will re-open and women will be hurt and women will die , besides the one they intentionally kill while still in their mother’s womb.

        • This style ten and six

          Very, very rarely.

          • GibbyD

            But that is NOT all they do in those clinics .

        • gogo0

          even a seemingly-innocuous drug such as ibuprofen is known to cause stomach bleeding. quit pretending that you believe this is about women’s physical health. the bible doesn’t say anything about lying being okay when it serves you, you are actively and consciously sinning when pretending that is your concern

          • GibbyD

            I am concerned about the negative effects of liberal politicians, media and a society that have lied to young woman to cause them to sacrifice the most precious gift God could ever give them besides everlasting life. Now the wicked want to also make it more risky in that process of killing their own children. I do care about young women and the loss that is being forced upon them. They need to be helped so that their children can be born and taken care of . If they are unable then they need to be shown better options rather than killing. The abortion doctors and facilities only want the money and do not care about the long term effects an abortion will have on those women they rob. Most women will think for a lifetime about the child they allowed to be killed . Only the love, mercy and grace of God can bring the healing needed to escape that kind of guilt. The fathers of those killed children also will reflect and wonder about that son or daughter they may have had, and for some, those children were the only ones that God was going to give them. This is all about women’s health both physically and mentally. The innocent unborn girls and boys that are killed , go to be with The LORD. Concerning lying , I did not . Your false accusation though is a sin in itself. The remedy for all sin is still , “..repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21; Romans 6:17,23)KJB. You are accountable for what you know so if you leave this world without Christ and end up in Hell , you have no excuse.

    • Tangent002

      The overturning of HB 2 does not mean these clinics operate with no standards at all. The law imposed additional standards, but only for clinics performing abortions. It did not require these standards for other facilities performing far riskier procedures.

      • GibbyD

        Because those other facilities already met those standards under existing health codes

        • Tangent002

          Nope.

          Here is a list of procedures that are not required to have the same standards required by HB 2:

          Colonoscopy
          Vasectomy
          Wisdom teeth extraction
          Miscarriage treatment
          Laser eye surgery
          Biopsies
          Cystoscopies
          Toenail removal
          Skin cancer lesion removal
          Hernia repair
          Thyroid biopsy
          Tonsillectomy
          Bronchoscopy
          Appendectomy
          Tubal ligation
          Esophageal-reflux surgery
          Lumpectomy
          Mastectomy
          Benign cyst removal
          Rotator Cuff repair
          Shoulder arthroscopy

          • GibbyD

            Those facilities that perform those procedures, already have standards that meet the health and safety needs that are requited .

          • Tangent002

            No, they all can be legally performed in a doctor’s office or clinic that doesn’t meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center.

          • GibbyD

            no , they can’t

          • Tangent002

            Yes, they can. There is an article in the Dallas Observer that specifically addresses this, but this site does not allow me to post a link.

          • GibbyD

            The law required abortion facilities to meet the same health and safety standards as other facilities performing similarly invasive surgeries. It also required physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, in the event that something went wrong during an abortion procedure.

          • Tangent002

            You are not getting my point. I provided you with a list of procedures that can be performed in Texas either outside of an ASC and/or without the doctor having admitting privileges. Why were those procedures not included in HB 2?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Colonoscopy
            Vasectomy
            Wisdom teeth extraction
            Laser eye surgery
            Biopsies
            Cystoscopies
            Toenail removal
            Skin cancer lesion removal
            Hernia repair
            Thyroid biopsy
            Tonsillectomy
            Bronchoscopy
            Appendectomy
            Esophageal-reflux surgery
            Lumpectomy
            Mastectomy
            Benign cyst removal
            Rotator Cuff repair
            Shoulder
            Arthroscopy

            Note…none of these kill an innocent life that has no say in what the Mom is choosing to do when she goes in for an Abortion that will kill her son or daughter.

          • gogo0

            thank you for finally abandoning the ‘womens health and safety’ lie you were hiding behind and moving back to abortion being the argument. one less thing to ask jesus’ forgiveness for before you go to sleep tonight

          • GibbyD

            Because getting your nails trimmed is not the same as killing an innocent unborn girl or boy by pulling them apart limb by limb or any of another diabolical methods being used to end the life of the innocent little ones who cannot speak for themselves .

          • Tangent002

            Where In that list is nail trimming?

          • Tangent002

            So you admit this law was not about ‘protecting women’ at all.

            Thanks for that.

          • GibbyD

            “If abortion is really about women’s health, why has the Supreme Court struck down a law that required abortions to occur in a safe and clean environment? One specification required clinics to make sure hallways are wide enough to admit gurneys so that paramedics could reach injured women in the case of complications. Is that an “undue burden?” To make sure women have access to life-saving medical care?

            Women at most clinics are told to go to the emergency room if they experience complications, making it crucial for the abortion provider to have a formal relationship with a nearby hospital. If the provider does not, the emergency room will lose precious time scrambling for information on the patient’s case, compromising her care and potentially her life.

            What substantial objection could any women’s health advocate have to requiring doctors to obtain local admitting privileges? If you haven’t heard horror stories of women with post-abortion complications arriving at ERs, bleeding and in mortal danger, whose abortionists cannot be contacted, you haven’t been paying attention to this debate.

            I agree with Justice Thomas’s dissenting claim that this decision “perpetuates the court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights — especially the putative right to abortion.”

            Though I have an ethical objection to most cases of abortion, I accept that women can legally choose it. My focus as a pro-life feminist is on education and empowerment. Women deserve to make an informed choice, without deception or coercion, and they deserve to know that their safety is of paramount importance.

            If there is common ground to be found between pro-choice and pro-life camps, it will be found here: in a mutual concern for the safety, well-being, and dignity of women. Both sides should understand the harm — to women and to abortion access — when a woman is coerced or misled into abortion, or is unduly harmed by the procedure. Regretted abortions are bad for both sides.

            Without this understanding, the pro-life community proves the oft-heard objection that they are fetus-worshipers who care nothing for women, and pro-choice activists prove that abortion has become sacrosanct, their commitment to it trumping all other concerns — including women’s health.

            The Court’s decision should alarm and dismay abortion’s opponents and its proponents as well.”———————————————- “By KRISTEN WALKER

            “In an unexpected 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law Monday, saying it placed an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.

            Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt concerned a 2013 Texas law known as House Bill 2, which required two new regulations for abortion clinics: first, abortion doctors would have to obtain admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic; and second, clinics would need to meet specifications required to become ambulatory surgical centers.

            Their objection to HB2 demonstrates that abortion advocates care more about protecting the abortion industry than protecting women. This decision proves what pro-life feminists have been saying for years: the pro-choice position is misogyny in action. Striking down this law will harm women.

            As a pro-life feminist, I not only believe that women deserve equal human rights, but that women are strong and capable. The abortion industry tells women they can’t make anything of their lives without abortion. That is the opposite of empowerment.

            Women were once considered property and denied basic human rights. How dare we treat our children the same way? Our liberation cannot come at their expense.

            The battle cry for pro-Roe activists in the 70s, after the Roe vs. Wade decision legalized abortion, echoed around the country, and we all know their adage that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” We’ve settled for one out of three. It’s legal, but often unsafe, and nowhere near rare.

            I wouldn’t want to have surgery in a clinic that doesn’t meet surgical center requirements. More than 700,000 abortions occur in the U.S. every year. Surgical abortion is an extremely common procedure. How many women walk into these clinics knowing that standards are lower than in other surgical centers? My guess is very few.

            There are extreme examples of how this harms women, such as the grisly charnel house that served as the clinic of Kermit Gosnell. But many industry whistle-blowers have spoken publicly about the low standards of cleanliness and safety they’ve witnessed in many clinics.”

          • Tangent002

            Again, when proponents of HB 2 were asked for specific instances where a woman would have been spared injury or death if the bill had been in place, they could not produce a single example.

            “The state of Texas has also not demonstrated that these rules will
            improve the health and safety of women. Texas vital statistics data from
            2010, available at [link redacted due to site policy],
            shows that there were zero reported maternal deaths out of 72,000
            abortions that year. That puts the mortality rate from abortion in Texas
            very close to zero (as indeed, the rate in 2010 was zero). By way of
            contrast, the mortality rate associated with colonoscopy is estimated to
            be 0.03%, or 128 per 370,000 procedures. CDC data shows a maternal
            mortality rate of 0.68 per 100,000 abortions from 2003-2008, which is
            0.00068%. This makes the risk of death from having a colonoscopy 44
            times that of having an abortion.” – Jennifer Cowart, MD

          • Tangent002

            Again, when proponents of HB 2 were asked for specific instances
            where a woman would have been spared injury or death if the bill had
            been in place, they could not produce a single example.

            “As a physician, licensed in the state of Texas, I opposed HB 2 and I continue to oppose it now that it is the law. The rule clarification quoted
            above, found at [link redacted due to site policy] on September 27, 2013, is blatantly incorrect. Many, many other “procedures,” both surgical and non-invasive, are currently performed in Texas outside of ambulatory surgical centers.

            I am not aware of any law or rule requiring common procedures such as vasectomy, cystoscopy, colposcopy, IUD placement, subcutaneous implant placement (such as the contraceptive rod), colonoscopy with or without polypectomy, sigmoidoscopy, hemorrhoid banding, skin biopsy, abscess incision and drainage, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, laryngoscopy, dental extraction, wisdom tooth extraction, lipoma removal, joint injection, arthrocentesis, eye surgery including LASIK, breast cyst aspiration, fine needle aspiration of lymph nodes or thyroid nodules, or ANY OTHER MEDICAL OR SURGICAL PROCEDURE, to be performed in an ambulatory surgical center, rather than a clinic. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I do not see any such requirement in Title 25, Chapter 135. Thus, your statement that “Texas allows no other procedure to opt out of the accepted standard of care” is false.

            The state of Texas has also not demonstrated that these rules will
            improve the health and safety of women. Texas vital statistics data from

            2010, available at [link redacted due to site policy], shows that there
            were zero reported maternal deaths out of 72,000 abortions that year.
            That puts the mortality rate from abortion in Texas very close to zero
            (as indeed, the rate in 2010 was zero). By way of contrast, the
            mortality rate associated with colonoscopy is estimated to be 0.03%, or
            128 per 370,000 procedures. CDC data shows a maternal mortality rate of 0.68 per 100,000 abortions from 2003-2008, which is 0.00068%. This makes the risk of death from having a colonoscopy 44 times that of having an abortion.” – Jennifer Cowart, MD

          • GibbyD

            The law prevented harm and deaths . The lack of injuries is proof of that. This is not the case in other states where there are less inspections and and requirements for baby killing clinics .

          • Tangent002

            See above.

          • Tangent002

            The law only applied to abortion and not more risky procedures. I don’t know how to make that more plain.

          • GibbyD

            The law protected women . Now they no longer have that protection. The other doctors and facilities that did procedures unrelated to killing innocent unborn girls and boys , had laws in effect that protected those individuals seeking those needs.

          • GibbyD

            The Texas law prevented the injuries and deaths. Now that that is reversed , you will indeed see a rise in mortality and abuse.

          • Tangent002

            No, there were negligible injuries or deaths due to abortion complications before the law was enacted. The law ‘fixed’ a problem that didn’t exist.

          • GibbyD

            so you admit the law prevented injuries , thanks . I suppose if the injury was not to you or your loved one , it is only considered ” negligible”, but if it happened to you , maybe it would be considered worse.

          • Tangent002

            The law prevented no injuries. In point of fact, HB 2 drove Texas women to seek abortifacients from dicey Mexican pharmacies.

          • GibbyD

            You said ” there were negligible injuries or deaths before the law was enacted”. While the laws were in place , there were none. No injuries or deaths is less than Negligible injuries or deaths .

          • GibbyD

            Simply look up Dr. Gosnell from Pennsylvania and you will understand why the baby killing clinics need to meet the same health and safety standards as other facilities performing similarly invasive surgeries

          • Tangent002

            Gosnell was a criminal. Pennsylvania lacked the staffing necessary to perform regular inspections, not that Pennsylvania didn’t have appropriate standards.

          • GibbyD

            Gosnell is just the one they caught. Inspectors surmise that there are many more operating the same way. If Gosnell would have been required to have admitting privileges at a hospital , he never would have been able to open up his clinic of horrors.

      • Amos Moses

        Activists Take Break From Mourning Dead Gorilla To Cheer Abortion Ruling

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    The bottom line is that the Court saw through the Texas law. “Women’s health” was a dishonest pretext for limiting abortions which have very few complications and remain one of the safest procedures that people undergo.

    • Amos Moses

      Like at this clinic in Texas ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      Video Smuggled Out of a TX Abortion Clinic
      youtube;com/watch?v=eISfhfEKH_g

      – Replace the ; with a .

  • james blue

    Lets be honest, these laws are an upfront tactic used as part of a conservative pro life agenda to make it as impossible as possible to obtain an abortion.

    Without a waver policy for clinics for where doctors are not able to gain admitting privileges or a requirement for at least one local hospital to grant them then it is specifically designed to close down abortion clinics.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      You would think the Christian Right would at least have the integrity to be honest about their anti-abortion legislation. I mean, come on, “Thou shalt not lie.” It’s right there in the Ten Commandments!

      It’s like they think you can lie to unbelievers when the truth becomes inconvenient. You know, that thing they keep accusing Muslims of doing that they claim to absolutely hate?

      • TheBottomline4This

        Kind of like you anti-gun ones who don’t have the integrity to be honest on the legislations you want to eventually pass as you can. SMH

        • Ambulance Chaser

          What anti-gun legislation would that be?

        • james blue

          Do you agree or disagree with the tactic dependent on the issue?

          I’m against abortion but I disagree with the big authoritarian social conservative government tactics used. If a tactic can be used against abortion it can be used against something you like.

      • james blue

        I don’t call myself pro life because I believe in the death penalty and the right to die, but I’m against abortion. I’m just being honest about the tactic

      • Amos Moses

        ” “Thou shalt not lie.” It’s right there in the Ten Commandments!”

        Yep, after ……….. THOU SHALT NOT KILL ………………… not that you care one way or the other about either ………….

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Assuming for the moment that I don’t care about any Commandments, why does my conduct get to dictate yours? If I happen to discover that you don’t care about FRCP 12 (b)(6), does that mean I get to break all of the Federal Rules?

          • Amos Moses

            “why does my conduct get to dictate yours? ”

            Because you live in a society ……………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And the rules of society are that you only have to obey the Ten Commandments if some random guy on the Internet does too?

        • gogo0

          muslims also claim they are allowed to break their own rules to further their agenda. youre not helping your argument by lowering yourself to your competition’s level

          • Amos Moses

            So what lie do you think was told …………….

          • gogo0

            I understand that you think it isnt a lie if you believe it is true, but you clearly don’t, and pretending doesn’t make it so. the failed deception is laid out clearly in the supreme court hearing, and least of all in this forum by a number of users, including in Ambulance Chaser’s post you replied to.
            we understand that you are a religious zealot, you don’t like abortion, and you will do anything to stop it, you don’t need to hide your true intent behind poorly-conceived and indefensible dishonesty.

          • Amos Moses

            ummm …… what are you even talking about ………..

          • gogo0

            your argument. glad you seem to have forgotten it, it was stupid to begin with

          • Amos Moses

            Again …………… oh never mind ……….

          • gogo0

            nothing useful to say, so you pretend to be stupid… somehow its a real improvement over your normal self.

    • Amos Moses

      “Lets be honest, these laws are an upfront tactic used as part of a conservative pro life agenda to make it as impossible as possible to obtain an abortion.”

      Lets be honest, the “liberal” mantra is that abortion should be “legal, safe and RARE” to obtain an abortion. This law accomplished ALL OF THAT ………………. but i guess we need to have a pity party for those who got there way and made it legal, UNSAFE, and NOT RARE ………………….

      • Ambulance Chaser

        If you can think of one way this law would have made abortion safer, you know more than the State of Texas attorney who argued this case before the Supreme Court.

    • Amos Moses

      BLACKS TARGETED AT ‘ASTRONOMICAL’ RATE BY ABORTIONISTS
      By 69-1, deaths of unborn outnumber all homicides

      WND

      So you support black genocide …………….. really ……………..

      • james blue

        What does that have to do with the specific subject?

        • Amos Moses

          Do you really think the killing of blacks in the womb ………………. is not racist whether they are induced to do it or not …………….. is some how a good thing ………….. on any level whatsoever ……………. if you do,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then you support a racist policy and you are a racist ……….

          If you think race and abortion do not have an incestuous history ………….. then you do not know history ……………..

          • james blue

            You didn’t answer the question I asked or link to any reports of blacks being dragged into abortion facilities

          • Amos Moses

            And i said it does not matter if they are induced to go there or are dragged……….. learn to parse ………. killing children is killing children …….. and abortion targets blacks disproportionately ………..

            Did you get it this time ……………

          • james blue

            Perhaps blacks disproportionately decide to have abortions….But again what does that have to do with the specific subject in the article and my comment?

          • Amos Moses

            You support a policy of racism …………………

          • Tangent002

            Do you think blacks shouldn’t have access to abortions?

          • Amos Moses

            No one should …… it is murder ………..

          • james blue

            yet you think it only counts when black people abort.

          • Amos Moses

            It disproportionally affects blacks ……………. and its history is in the eugenics movement and it was and is used as black genocide ………… and it is a racist policy ……… and it is supported by racists …………….

          • james blue

            Why are you anti white? Why won’t you stand up for the unborn white babies? Why aren’t all lives worth the same no matter skin color to you?

          • Amos Moses

            They are not to you ………….. you are for their murder of whatever color they are …….. and that makes it all better? …………………. really ……………..

          • Amos Moses

            69-1 is kind of hard to ignore …………….. black genocide ………. the maafa …….. is hard to ignore …………… but you keep trying ……….

          • james blue

            Why do you not have problems with whites having abortions? Apparently you support white genocide

          • Amos Moses

            All abortion is wrong ……… it is murder ……… but the HISTORY of abortion is black genocide ………… and you support that racist history and policy …………….

          • james blue

            Why don’t you think the genocide of white babies doesn’t count?

            What does it have to do with the specific subject in the article and my comment?

  • TheBottomline4This

    You got it your way pro-choicers. So now, if bad results happen to you or those you know at an Abortion clinic during the Abortion, just know I’ll be smiling and glad for your pain 🙂

    • Jalapeno

      What injuries do you think these restrictions would prevent?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        I’d love to know too, because the attorney arguing for the State couldn’t think of any.

    • This style ten and six

      True Christian response. After all you’re the people who like to contemplate non christians frying in agony for all eternity.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Like your sides choice of killing an innocent life is a better one, lol.
        Up to a point, you hope and care, but there comes a time fool, when you just let those who refuse to follow Truth receive the consequences of their choice. You and yours being pro-choice offers you that.
        The Bible does say in Matthew 15:13-14, “But He answered and said, Every plant, which My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”
        Enjoy 🙂

        • This style ten and six

          Of course “truth” is only what you say it is. It never occurs to you that maybe the bible is just a collection of myth, garbled history and Israelite propaganda with no relevance to modern life.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Of course “truth” is only what you say it is.
            It never occurs to you that maybe the Bible is Truth with total relevance to modern life.

    • Tangent002

      No hospital can refuse to admit a woman experiencing complications. All admitting privileges do is reduce paperwork somewhat after treatment.

      The majority of abortions are minimally invasive, with many performed through pharmaceuticals alone. Requiring surgical center standards for a woman taking a couple of pills is ludicrous.

      In addition, these standards did not apply to other outpatient facilities performing far riskier procedures.

      • TheBottomline4This

        If bad results happen to you or those you know at an Abortion clinic during the Abortion, just know I’ll be smiling and glad for your pain 🙂

    • gogo0

      always interesting to catch a glimpse at what is behind the façade some of the more zealous fanatics put up in public. unfortunately it is no surprise that behind the façade is hate and a delight in seeing their opponents suffering.
      secular society wants theists to do their thing and leave the rest of us alone, religious extremists want us to hurt if they don’t get their way. WWJD?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    U.S. Supreme Court used to support slavery. US states should follow the Holy Bible and a clear conscience rather than treating the unwanted children in wombs as sub-humans as ordered by the superior. Nazism was once legal in a country, but it was a wrong thing for mankind. So is the abortion(murder).

    • james blue

      Was the SCOTUS not following the bible about slavery?

      • GibbyD

        The Bible says that if a person can gain their freedom , that they are to pursue that. “Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” ( 1st Corinthians 7:23)KJB. The Bible was not in favor of slavery. Indentured servants were voluntary servants to pay off their debts. They were all to be free at the Jubilee year. The other slavery occurred when because of sin , the people of God were overtaken by their enemies and became enslaved.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        There were many white Americans who worked to free slaves tirelessly. SCOTUS disobeyed the Holy Bible by treating the black people as sub-humans back then, and today the victims are unwanted children in wombs. The Westeren civilization thus the entire world has no proper morality apart from the Holy Bible. SCOTUS oppresses the Christian population by forcing people to endorse same-sex “marriage.” The Westerners need Christianity for sanity.

  • Amos Moses

    Seedy Taco Truck Where Ruth Bader Ginsburg Grabs Lunch More Regulated Than Nation’s Abortion Clinics – Babylon Bee

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—After championing what is being called the Supreme Court’s most significant abortion ruling in fifty years Monday, striking down Texas laws enforcing abortion industry safety regulations, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reportedly pressed for time and “too tired to make something herself,” grabbed some lunch at seedy-looking taco truck “Jose Loco’s Crazy Tacos” during her lunch break, opting for two carne asada tacos from the rolling food vendor which is more regulated and held to higher safety standards than America’s abortion clinics, according to sources.

    Satire …………… but its funny ……….. because its true ……………

  • Steen Goddik

    The best way to stop abortions is to make them unnecessary.