www.CatholicLiberty.com

Supreme Court ruling blasted for pro-abortion bias in Texas ruling


MATT HADRO

Source:
CNA
Type:
Media/Opinion
Date:
6/27/2016

Go to this article

Want to understand the Catholic faith?

ABSTRACTSupreme Court ruling blasted for pro-abortion bias in Texas ruling :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)   Latest News Most Read Archive Resources Tools Catholic Podcast RSS Feeds Columns Documents Mama Needs Coffee CNA Blog Italian Spanish Portuguese German Editors Service About us Donate Italian Spanish Portuguese German News Headlines Vatican Americas Asia - Pacific US Europe Middle East - Africa Most Read Most Commented Archive Resources Abortion Advent Apologetics Benedict XVI Bible Cardinals Catechism Catholic Links Catholic Womanhood Church Fathers Holy Week Life & Family Liturgical Calendar Liturgy Mary Politics Pope Francis Prayers Sacraments Saints Virtue Tools Catholic Podcast RSS Feeds CNA TV CNA Audio Columns Bishops' Corner Book Reviews Cinemazlowski Fr. Robert Barron Guest Columnist In Good Company Led Into the Truth Live Greater Making a Difference Movie Reviews Russell Shaw The Common Good with Deacon Keith Fournier The Dispute of the Humanum The New (& the Old) Evangelization The Way of Beauty Viewpoint Documents Pope Benedict XVI Pope John Paul II Pope Paul VI Pope John XXIII Pope Pius XII Pope Pius XI Pope Pius X Pope Leo XIII Vatican II Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith Pontifical Council for the Family United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Cardinal James Francis Stafford Archbishop Charles J. Chaput Bishop Samuel J. Aquila Mama Needs Coffee CNA Blog Home » News » US Supreme Court ruling blasted for pro-abortion bias in Texas ruling 2015 March for Life in Washington D.C. on Jan. 22, 2015. Credit: Addie Mena/CNA. Follow By Matt Hadro Washington D.C., Jun 27, 2016 / 04:35 pm ( CNA/EWTN News ) .- In striking down Texas’ regulations of abortion clinics, the Supreme Court showed favoritism toward the supposed “right to abortion” over states’ interests in the health of women and normal court proceedings, critics said Monday. “The Court has rejected a common-sense law protecting women from abortion facilities that put profits above patient safety,” said Deirdre McQuade, assistant director for pro-life communications at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. In a 5-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that included two key regulations of abortion clinics – abortionists had to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and clinics had to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. The court ruled that the law put an “undue burden” on a women’s right to an abortion, saying that it posed a “substantial obstacle” to that right without showing the necessary benefits of its regulations to women’s health. Regarding the admitting privileges requirement, the court majority said there was already a “working arrangement” in place between hospitals and abortionists. Because of the new requirement, around half the clinics in the state closed, they said, citing “sufficient evidence” from “the record.” The court also said that requiring clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.” Since clinics closing meant longer waits, longer distances between clinics, and more crowds at each clinic, this all presented an unconstitutional “undue burden” on a woman’s “right to abortion,” the court said. The dissenting justices sharply disagreed. The closing of clinics in one part of the state shouldn’t mean that clinics in another area should be free from the law, Justice Samuel Alito argued. “The possibility that the admitting privileges requirement might have caused a closure in Lubbock is no reason to issue a facial injunction exempting Houston clinics from that requirement,” he stated. Justice Clarence Thomas added that the “decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights - especially the putative right to abortion.” After the Court’s ruling, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton defended the Texas law, saying it “was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women.” Other Catholics spoke out against the majority opinion. “The Catholic Church in Texas, in communion with millions of Catholics across America and the world, will continue its efforts to protect life and human dignity from conception to natural death,” the Texas Catholic bishops stated. “Surgical abortion is an invasive procedure that poses numerous and serious medical complications,” they said. “The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring the maximum level of safety for the woman subjected to the procedure and that viable emergency care is available if complications such as hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, blo.......