How often have we heard the left tell us, emphatically, that abortions are only a small slice of a clinic’s health care pie? Most of their business – they insist – results from providing contraception, screenings, non-abortive services. If that is true then why are litigants in a Louisiana case insisting that if clinics can’t perform abortions they’ll close?
How could limiting something that generates so little of a women’s health care clinic revenue result in forcing them to close up shop?
I doubt the US Supreme Court will have an answer but they are being asked to block a lower court ruling.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law that,
requires physicians who perform abortions in the state to have “active admitting privileges” – the ability not only to admit patients, but also to provide diagnostic and surgical services – at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the doctor provides abortions.
The US Supreme Court struck down an identical Texas Law but that was one Anthony Kennedy ago. This time around they might not be so lucky, but they’d like the law blocked while this case works its way through the courts. If the law isn’t blocked during that time, Abortion advocates fear the worst.
Moreover, they add, if clinics are forced to close temporarily while the law is being enforced, they are “unlikely to ever reopen.”
Again, how could limiting something that generates so little of a women’s health care clinic revenue result in forcing them to close up shop?
While we wait for the non-answer to that question, I have another one.
Rhetorical hang Ups
Legal abortions were promoted to prevent women from seeking ‘back-alley’ abortions. But what is the difference between a back alley operation and one performed by someone with no surgical or diagnostic qualifications?
Kermit Gosnell comes to mind. His Back Alley had a door but the conditions were no better and the results predictable. Women died while Democrats and Big Abortion defended that sort of practice. One with no real oversight.
Which is yet another contradiction.
Democrats are big fans of licensing. Control. New Hampshire (as an example) has expensive and byzantine licensing requirements for all manner of ‘professional” activity. So, how do you justify those costs and inconveniences where lives are not at risk then oppose laws like the one in Louisiana that ensure that what passes for “Women’s Health Care” includes professionals capable of actual care should something go sideways?
