End Times and Current Events
December 08, 2022, 05:49:32 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

House committee OKs Texas abortion regulations

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: House committee OKs Texas abortion regulations  (Read 3436 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2013, 06:47:41 am »

This is the spirit you get when you reject the Lord in Romans 1, oh they were also OARNGE SHIRTS, so...

Teen Girl Defends Sign Saying “Jesus Isn’t a D—, Keep Him Out of My ****”

During the pro-abortion protests leading up to the Texas vote on the late-term abortion ban, the Internet was shocked to see a young girl hold a sign saying “Jesus Isn’t a D—, Keep Him Out of May ****.”
 
Earlier this month, a man on Twitter accepted responsibility for the sign, saying his young daughter made it and had her friend hold it. Billy Joe Cain is an Austin resident who is a video game producer and has no problem with young girls holding vulgar signs referring to sexual parts. In fact, he said he is “proud” of her.
 
Now, the teen girl behind the sign is defending it.
 
In a blog post, the teen, Tuesday Cain, says:
 
I also believe in the right to choose and the separation of church and state. Or to put it another way — to put it the way I wrote it when I was protesting at the Capitol last week:
 
“Jesus isn’t a **** so keep him out of my ****.”
 
Yes, that’s my sign.
 
I came up with it last week when my friend and I were trying to think of ideas for what would get people’s attention to protest the scary restrictions that are happening in my state trying to take away a woman’s right to safe and accessible abortions. you mean to murder babies to BAAL, as that is all it is. Its not anything else at all.
 
It worked.
 
When my friend and I took turns holding the sign, one of the pictures of her went viral.
 
Then my dad went online to defend the sign on Twitter and other online forums.
 
That’s when people started calling me a “****.”
 
Tuesday goes on to complain about the name people called her and saying she has no plans to have sex, despite producing a sign that talks about sexual parts.
 
She also goes on to admit that one person she knows who has had abortions regrets her decision and is now pro-life. Cain hasn’t learned from that woman’s abortion experience but, instead, uses it as a reason to promote abortion.
 
I know someone who has had a few abortions. She now says that abortion is bad and she fights against a woman’s right to choose.
 
This makes it all the more important for me to protest, even if I am only 14.
 
Nowhere in her post does Cain admit that the bill she opposes would kill babies past the point of viability and up to the day of birth. Instead, she uses Christianity to support her position — forgetting the Biblical commandment not to kill.
 
Writing at National Review, Jay Nordlinger responds to the teen’s blog post:
 
There are a million things to say about this dear girl, and her sign, but one of them is this: What does that “****” business mean, exactly? I’m no anatomist, but don’t babies form in the womb? The thing is, a lot of these pro-choice folk regard abortion as a form of birth control, right?
 
And it is, really: No baby, no birth.
 
Ted Kennedy used to say that anti-abortion people were invading “our bedrooms.” I thought that was an interesting way of putting it. I have no doubt that Kennedy thought of abortion as birth control. Ted used the same method to get rid of unwanted woman

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/24/teen-girl-defends-sign-saying-jesus-isnt-a-d-keep-him-out-of-my-****/

http://tinyurl.com/lkm9bwt
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2013, 05:33:35 pm »

Here we go again - but guess this shouldn't come as a surprise as the courts system has been compromised...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/31/abortion-rick-perry
8/5/13
Abortion law sonogram clause proposal rejected by US judge

Court rejects key parts of Texas governor's anti-abortion law plans, including making women listen to baby's heartbeat


A court has blocked key parts of a Texas anti-abortion law drawn up by Rick Perry, the state's governor and the leading Republican presidential candidate, which would force women seeking terminations to view a sonogram and listen to the heartbeat of their foetus.

A federal court judge also struck down a requirement that doctors describe the unborn baby to the mother in the hope that she would change her mind about an abortion. The judge said the provisions were an unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of women and doctors.

Perry designated the law, which would have taken effect on Thursday, as an "emergency issue", fast-tracking it through the legislature earlier this year.

He has a clear lead in polls of Republican primary voters as the party's presidential candidate. Opponents say he has used the law to demonstrate his anti-abortion credentials to conservatives and the Christian right, and to create an election issue.

Perry has also drawn criticism for the unusual degree of government intrusion into a personal decision, not least because he is a vigorous critic of regulation. He has promised that, if elected, he will make the government in Washington mostly "inconsequential" to people's lives.

The judge, Sam Sparks, said it was not legal to force either women or doctors to meet the requirements relating to viewing the sonogram and listening to the baby's heartbeat. He also struck down a provision that could strip a doctor of a licence to practise for failing to comply.

"The act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," the judge said. "[It] violates the first amendment [of the US constitution, guaranteeing free speech] by compelling physicians and patients to engage in government-mandated speech and expression."

The law exempted women pregnant through **** or incest, but only if they made an objection in writing. The court blocked this part of the legislation, too.

"The court need not belabour the obvious by explaining why, for instance, women who are pregnant as a result of sexual assault or incest may not wish to certify that fact in writing, particularly if they are too afraid of retaliation to even report the matter to police," Sparks said.

The Centre for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case to block the legislation, called the ruling a huge victory, saying that politicians did not have the right to interfere in how doctors practised medicine, or in women's private medical decisions.

Perry denounced the ruling, which is expected to go to the supreme court on appeal. "Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy and today's ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defence of life," he said. "This important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision."

But the ruling is likely to help Perry by giving him fuel for the argument that power should lie with state governments rather than the courts or Washington.

Critics have noted that Perry showed little interest in abortion when a member of the Texas legislature, but embraced it when he became governor in 2000.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2013, 05:38:45 pm »

Quote
The judge, Sam Sparks, said it was not legal to force either women or doctors to meet the requirements relating to viewing the sonogram and listening to the baby's heartbeat. He also struck down a provision that could strip a doctor of a licence to practise for failing to comply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sparks

Sparks was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089. He was confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1991, and received his commission on November 25, 1991.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2013, 02:36:12 am »

Quote
"The act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," the judge said. "[It] violates the first amendment [of the US constitution, guaranteeing free speech] by compelling physicians and patients to engage in government-mandated speech and expression."

Nobody can tell me that isn't a judge that just ruled based on bias, and not law.

Here's why..."act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda...regardless of medical necessity...whether the pregnant women wish to listen".

That right there. Now they say regardless of medical necessity? Uh, There are requirements of doctors to inform the patient of their medical condition, the risks of the condition, etc.

To inform the woman of her medical condition and the associated risks of both keeping and terminating a pregnancy is not advancing an agenda! In fact, it's supporting a woman's right to choose, having the patient fully educated about their health situation so that they can make an informed decision about their own health.

It's not the patients they are protecting from an agenda, it's the abortion clinics they are protecting, so the clinics won't have to inform the patients that they are in fact killing a child. They want the women to not think of the "medical condition" as an unborn child, but as a malady to be treated.



Show a woman a sonogram and have her listen to it's heartbeat changes all that and they know it. The clinics don't want women to even consider what an abortion is really doing.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2013, 12:49:54 pm »

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/abortion-rules-advance-without-approval-from-advis/nZgn3/

Posted: 5:19 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013

Abortion rules advance without approval from advisory board

Proposed abortion rules, written in response to the sweeping regulations Gov. Rick Perry signed into law in July, moved forward Thursday — but not in the expected way.

The State Health Services Council, a nine-member advisory panel, declined to vote on the proposed rules at a morning meeting as members pointedly declined to second a motion for approval.

What point they were trying to make, however, is a mystery. Members of the council quickly left the dais, with several declining to explain their decision. No motion for approval had failed for lack of a second in recent memory, said Carrie Williams, spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services.

The lack of a vote did not slow progress of the rules toward final approval. They were sent to Health and Human Services Commission Kyle Janek, who will approve their publication in the Texas Register, triggering a 30-day period for written public comments, an agency spokeswoman said.

The rules were drafted by the Department of State Health Services, which regulates abortion clinics, to enact House Bill 2, which as of Oct. 29 will ban abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization, require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital and require women seeking a drug-induced abortion to make four clinic visits instead of three.

A requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers will take effect Sept. 1, 2014.

During public comments Thursday, many of the 20 people who spoke against the rules urged the council to soften surgical center requirements that were described as unnecessary, onerous and designed to force clinics to close — including 8-feet-wide hallways, large operating rooms and male locker rooms.

Two council members asked if such changes could be implemented.

Agency lawyer Lisa Hernandez said the new law gave the council no leeway in modifying the surgical standards or make other suggested changes, including granting waivers or time extensions to existing abortion clinics.


Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2013, 12:52:41 pm »

Quote
A requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers will take effect Sept. 1, 2014.

So this starts in September of NEXT YEAR? Seriously, that's MORE than a year from now(slightly, albeit). Wow...pretty much everyone working for Caesar is not who you think they are! Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2013, 01:24:56 pm »

Quote
What point they were trying to make, however, is a mystery. Members of the council quickly left the dais, with several declining to explain their decision. No motion for approval had failed for lack of a second in recent memory, said Carrie Williams, spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services.

Not a mystery to me. That is classic politician disassociation from a bill, and at the same time not preventing it's passage. They have realized that if they can just weather the initial storm over a bill, it will soon blow over, and on to the next topic of the day, though the voting record remains, their part becomes clouded in history as the record only shows a vote, or non-vote. Political cowardice as I see it.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2013, 03:40:05 pm »

'Choice: Texas' Abortion Video Game Encourages Players to Overcome Obstacles to Have an Abortion

An "abortion video game" designed to show the obstacles Texan women face when pursuing the procedure has sparked controversy, with pro-life supporters claiming it completely fails to acknowledge the life at stake and offers no voice to the unborn baby.
 
"I am saddened by this game," Emily Horne, a lobbyist for Texas Right to Life and a Texas native, said in a recent interview with Polygon. "It reduces abortion to a dry, simplistic view and it completely ignores the voice of the unborn baby, who obviously has no voice or perspective in this at all."
 
The game, called "Choice: Texas, A Very Serious Game," is in its developmental stages and involves players embarking on a quest to navigate past Texas' abortion restrictions to achieve the ultimate goal of having an abortion. Players may pick from five characters representing women facing different geographical, financial, or healthcare-related obstacles that they must overcome to receive an abortion. For example, one character is presented as a 19-year-old bartender and **** victim, who wishes to terminate her pregnancy, while another character is an excited, expectant mother who faces medical complications with her pregnancy.
 
The game's description on the website Indiegogo says "Choice: Texas" is an "educational interactive fiction game."
 
"Players will explore the game through one of several characters, each of whom reflects specific socioeconomic, geographic, and demographic factors impacting abortion access in Texas. Although billed as interactive fiction, Choice: Texas is based on extensive research into healthcare access, legal restrictions, geography, and demographics, and is reflective of the real circumstances facing women in the state," the description reads.
 
The game's creators are Carly Kocurek, a Texas native and assistant professor of Digital Humanities and Media Studies at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, and Allyson Whipple, an Austin-area poet, writer, and self-described feminist. Whipple wrote in a blog post on her website that the purpose of the game is to show that some women have "better choice options" than others.
 
"Cost is not the only struggle women have to deal with. Those who can't take much time off work, or who have to care for children, struggle with making time for mandatory counseling and clinic visits. Those who live in rural areas may have to travel far and take several days out from their normal lives - and this is made especially difficult if they don't have cars," Whipple writes.
 
"In addition, recent Texas legislative changes that will cause clinic closures will require these women to travel even farther. Carly and I created a cast of characters that cover a swath of ages, races, economic levels, and geographic locations," she continues, adding, "[the game] shows that while women in Texas ostensibly have freedom of choice, some women have less choice than others."
 
Whipple also told RH Reality Check that she hopes the game can be used as a sex education tool for older high schoolers, "with the right teacher in the right school district."
 
Horne of Texas Right to Life added to Polygon that the pro-life movement in the U.S. is constantly evolving, and she wouldn't be surprised to see a video game promoting the pro-life perspective sometime in the future.
 
"There are always new ways to discuss this sort of thing. The pro-life moment is constantly adapting and exploring new ways to reach people. We're focused on legislation and education but it wouldn't surprise me to see people with different talents looking at [games] as a way to reach people," Horne said.
 
"There are lots of people in different walks of life and with different skills who are looking for ways to talk to the pro-life point of view," she added.
 
Kocurek and Whipple will introduce a working prototype of "Choice: Texas" at the upcoming Future and Reality of Gaming [F.R.O.G.] conference in October. They expect the game to be released in February 2014.
 
In July, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law titled, House Bill 2, restricting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The law also requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their clinic, and have their abortion facility meet the same safety standards as ambulatory care centers. Additionally, the law requires the abortion-inducing bill RU-486 to be administered in person.
 
This new set of abortion restrictions in Texas sparked a national debate, with hundreds of pro-life and pro-abortion protesters flocking to the state's capitol building to offer their support or opposition for the bill. Democratic Senator Wendy Davis successfully delayed the abortion legislation by holding a 10-hour filibuster, but Gov. Perry then called a special session for lawmakers to have the bill passed.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/choice-texas-abortion-video-game-encourages-players-to-overcome-obstacles-to-have-an-abortion-103445/#Gq2J6L7oo6guVJSD.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2013, 03:59:50 pm »

"I am saddened by this game," Emily Horne, a lobbyist for Texas Right to Life and a Texas native, said in a recent interview with Polygon. "It reduces abortion to a dry, simplistic view and it completely ignores the voice of the unborn baby, who obviously has no voice or perspective in this at all."

Not that I endorse those secular violent video games that were talked about during those 1990's school shootings, but where are all these "conservative" politicians like Henry Hyde/John McCain and all of these pro-family groups exposing THIS NOW?

 
Quote
Horne of Texas Right to Life added to Polygon that the pro-life movement in the U.S. is constantly evolving, and she wouldn't be surprised to see a video game promoting the pro-life perspective sometime in the future.
 
"There are always new ways to discuss this sort of thing. The pro-life moment is constantly adapting and exploring new ways to reach people. We're focused on legislation and education but it wouldn't surprise me to see people with different talents looking at [games] as a way to reach people," Horne said.

Why use this New Age buzzword? And why don't they put out pro-life video game representations NOW?

Quote
"There are lots of people in different walks of life and with different skills who are looking for ways to talk to the pro-life point of view," she added.

You mean like it's OK to yoke up with other anti-Christ faiths?


With that being said - sometimes things like this can REALLY make you a loss for words. I would have never imagined a video game as abominable as THIS to hit the market! And I thought those other violent video games were the worst of the worst!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2013, 08:31:37 am »

Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over New Abortion Bill

Texas’ new abortion law is headed to court thanks to a federal lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
 
The lawsuit targets specific portions of the Texas omnibus abortion bill, including provisions that would impose stricter sanitary standards on abortion clinics and require providers gain admitting privileges at local hospitals, NBC News reports.
 
Four to seven abortion clinics have already said they would be forced to close their doors due to a supposed inability to meet the basic requirements outlined in the new bill, The Dallas Morning News reported.

The lawsuit also opposes the provision of the bill that requires abortion medication providers follow FDA protocol for the administration of abortion-inducing pills.
 
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Reproductive Rights, and at least a dozen abortion clinics have joined the lawsuit.
 
“I grew up in Texas and learned pretty early on that women only got what they fought for,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. “I think folks in the state have never fought harder.”
 
Despite frequent interruptions from the gallery and an 11-plus hour filibuster from State Senator Wendy Davis, the Texas Legislature earlier this year passed the omnibus bill. It was later signed into law by Republican Governor Rick Perry.
 
“Women shouldn’t have to go to court after every legislative session,” said Center for Reproductive Rights president Nancy Northup, adding that “women’s rights now depend on where they live.”
 
The pro-abortion groups argue that “rather than protecting women’s health, the Act will harm Texas women. It will also violate Plaintiffs’ and their patients’ rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Interestingly enough, the group’s lawsuit does not take aim at the part of the omnibus abortion legislation that bans abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy.
 
“The simple answer is that you can only do so much at once,” said Jim George, one of the case’s litigators.
 
Abortions after 20 week “are relatively rare and the immediate problem we’re facing here is that there are large parts of Texas that would be effectively precluded from ever getting an abortion by the statutes,” he said.
 
The groups may have also chosen to avoid the 20-week ban because abortions at that stage are extremely unpopular. Indeed, according to a recent poll from Quinnipiac, a plurality of American women oppose late-term abortions:



The pro-abortion groups filed suit with the U.S. District Court for the Western District, Austin Division, the NBC News report notes.
 
Provided Texas’ omnibus abortion legislation isn’t blocked in court, the new laws go into effect on October 29.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/28/planned-parenthood-sues-texas-over-new-abortion-bill/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2013, 03:42:05 pm »

Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional
http://news.yahoo.com/fed-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional-190525066.html
10/28/13

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge has determined that new Texas abortion restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution, a ruling that keeps open — at least for now — dozens of abortion clinics that were set to halt operations Tuesday had key parts of the law taken effect.

In a decision released Monday that the state is certain to appeal, District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that the regulations requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital creates an undue obstacle to women seeking an abortion.

"The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," he wrote.

While Yeakel found that the state could regulate how a doctor prescribes an abortion-inducing pill, he said the law did not allow for a doctor to adjust treatment taken in order to best protect the health of the woman taking it. Therefore he blocked the provision requiring doctors to follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for the pills in all instances.

"The medication abortion provision may not be enforced against any physician who determines, in appropriate medical judgment, to perform the medication-abortion using off-label protocol for the preservation of the life or health of the mother," Yeakel, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers that brought the lawsuit had argued the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic would force the closure of a third of the clinics in Texas. They also complained that requiring doctors to follow the FDA's original label for an abortion-inducing drug would deny women the benefit of recent advances in medical science.

Other portions of the law, known as House Bill 2, include a ban on abortions after 20 weeks and a requirement beginning in October 2014 that all abortions take place in a surgical facility. Neither of those sections was part of this lawsuit.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman's Health, celebrated the victory on admitting privileges but said the judge did not go far enough in overturning the requirement that doctors follow an 18-year-old protocol in prescribing medical abortions.

"Nearly 40 percent of the women we serve at Whole Woman's Health choose medication abortion and now Texas is preventing these women from the advances in medical practice that other women across the United States will be able to access," she said. "These restrictions are not based on sound medical practice."

The Texas attorney general's office had argued that the law protects women and the life of the fetus. Attorney General Greg Abbott was expected to file an emergency appeal of Yeakel's order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

"Today's decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren't exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently," Republican Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement. "We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly-elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans."

The law requiring admitting privileges was the biggest obstacle facing abortion clinics in Texas, and the ruling gives them a temporary reprieve until new regulations go into effect next year.

Mississippi passed a similar law last year, which a federal judge also blocked pending a trial scheduled to begin in March. Mississippi's attorney general asked the 5th Circuit to lift the temporary injunction so the law could be enforced, but the judges have left it in place signaling they believe there is a legitimate constitutional question.

Unlike the Mississippi case, Yeakel's order is a final decision, setting the groundwork for the 5th Circuit to review the merits of the law, not just an injunction against it.

The proposed restrictions were among the toughest in the nation and gained notoriety when Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster against them in June. The law also bans abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and beginning in October 2014 requires doctors to perform all abortions in surgical facilities.

The filibuster forced Gov. Rick Perry to call a second special legislative session for the Republican-controlled Legislature to pass the law. Davis is now running for governor on a women's rights platform. Since Perry is retiring, Abbott is Davis' likely Republican opponent, adding a political layer to the legal drama.

During the trial, officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified that they've tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision. Many hospitals with religious affiliations will not allow abortion doctors to work there, while others fear protests if they provide privileges. Many have requirements that doctors live within a certain radius of the facility, or perform a minimum number of surgeries a year that must be performed in a hospital.

Beth Shapiro, chairwoman of board of directors of Lubbock's Planned Parenthood Women's Health Center, said no hospital in Lubbock has granted privileges to the lone doctor from East Texas who flies in to do abortions when there are procedures scheduled. There is not incentive for hospitals to do so, she said.

"I don't see why local hospitals would give privileges to someone who's not going to admit patients," Shapiro said. "I don't see what the business and financial incentive would be. ...it's "more work and not going to increase patient load."

Hospitals are required to do yearly reviews on physicians to keep accreditation up to date, she said.

Shapiro said she wasn't aware of a woman getting an abortion in Lubbock who had complications and needed hospital care.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: October 28, 2013, 03:46:16 pm »

In a decision released Monday that the state is certain to appeal, District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that the regulations requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital creates an undue obstacle to women seeking an abortion.


A George W. Bush appointee...
http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/general/judges/biographyview.asp?bID=29
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2013, 12:30:27 pm »

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/texas-abortion-clinics-stay-open-110622210.html
Texas abortion clinics stay open following ruling

After judge's ruling to throw out new law, Texas abortion clinics set to resume appointments

10/29/13

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- The only abortion clinic in a 300-mile swath of West Texas can resume taking appointments Tuesday, after a federal judge struck down new restrictions that would have effectively shuttered it and at least a dozen other clinics across the state.

Lubbock's Planned Parenthood Women's Health Center had stopped making appointments last week, bracing for this week's scheduled enforcement of a new requirement that all doctors performing abortions in the state must have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles away.

Supporters who sued to block the requirement, part of a broad series of abortion limits the Legislature approved in July, argued it was meant to outlaw abortions, not make them safer as state officials had claimed. The judge agreed, finding that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

The admitting privileges provision "does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion," Judge Lee Yeakel, an appointee of President George W. Bush, a former Texas Republican governor, wrote in his decision.

The non-descript brown Lubbock clinic, often targeted by protesters, performs abortions only on Thursdays, when a doctor flies in from East Texas to perform them. Clinic officials said the 30-mile limit would effectively end abortions at the facility.

Abortion rights supporters argued most hospitals will not grant abortion doctors admitting privileges for religious, business or competitive reasons. As a result, they said, the law would shut down about a third of the 38 clinics in Texas.

"I don't see why local hospitals would give privileges to someone who's not going to admit patients," said Beth Shapiro, chairwoman of the board of directors of Lubbock's center. "I don't see what the business and financial incentive would be."

She said hospitals have to conduct yearly reviews to keep accreditation up to date.

"Why go through those procedures if the providers aren't using the hospital?" Shapiro said.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office argued the law protects women and the life of the fetus, immediately filed an appeal with the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

"I have no doubt that this case is going all the way to the United States Supreme Court," Abbott said during a stop in Brownsville, Texas, as part of his campaign to replace retiring Gov. Rick Perry.

Federal judges in Wisconsin, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama also have found problems with state laws prohibiting doctors from conducting abortions if they don't have hospital admitting privileges.

All the other appeals — including the one from Mississippi, which like Texas is within the 5th Circuit — deal only with whether to lift a temporary injunction preventing the restriction from taking effect. The Texas appeal could be the first that directly addresses the question of whether the provision violates the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

The law also threatened to stop abortions at both clinics in Fort Worth and two of the five clinics in neighboring Dallas County, said Danielle Wells, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. Those clinics had continued to make appointments, but had warned that they might be canceled because of the law.

During the trial, officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified that they've tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision.

The abortion law will likely take center stage in the Texas gubernatorial campaign. Abbott is adamantly anti-abortion and opposes the procedure even in cases of incest and ****.

Abbott's likely opponent, if he wins the 2014 Republican nomination, is Democrat state Sen. Wendy Davis, who gained national attention for a nearly 13-hour filibuster that temporarily stalled passage of the law in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

"As a mother, I would rather see our tax dollars spent on improving our kid's schools rather than defending this law," she said in a statement following the ruling.

In another part of his ruling, Yeakel partially blocked the provision requiring doctors to follow an 18-year-old U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol. He found that the state could regulate how a doctor prescribes an abortion-inducing pill, but the law failed to allow for a doctor to adjust treatment in order to best protect the health of the woman taking it.

Abortion rights supporters complained that requiring doctors to follow the FDA's original label for an abortion-inducing drug would deny women the benefit of recent advances in medical science.

Other portions of the law, known as House Bill 2, include a ban on abortions after 20 weeks and a requirement beginning in October 2014 that all abortions take place in a surgical facility. Neither of those sections was part of this lawsuit.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman's Health, said the judge did not go far enough.

"Nearly 40 percent of the women we serve at Whole Woman's Health choose medication abortion and now Texas is preventing these women from the advances in medical practice that other women across the United States will be able to access," she said.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 03:26:32 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2013, 06:43:27 am »

Bush-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Part of Texas Abortion Law as ‘Undue Burden’ on Women

A federal judge appointed by then-President George H.W. Bush has struck down portions of a new Texas abortion law, declaring the regulations an unconstitutional and “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to have an abortion.
 
The ruling by District Judge Lee Yeakel came one day before the regulations were to be enacted. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is expected to file an appeal with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana.
 
“I have no doubt that this case is going all the way to the United States Supreme Court,” he told reporters following the ruling.
 
As previously reported, House Bill 2 (HB 2) passed the Texas House of Representatives in June, and cleared the Senate a month later after being delayed by a filibuster led by Forth Worth Democrat Wendy Davis. It was signed into law days after its passage by Governor Rick Perry.

Last month, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed suit against the new law, asking the court to grant an injunction to prevent the statute from going into effect on October 29th. Specifically, the suit challenged the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility, and that they follow the Food and Drug Administration’s original dosage protocol for the pill RU-486.
 
Abbott, a Roman Catholic, had argued that the regulations would improve the level of care and protect the life and health of women who obtained abortions. But Planned Parenthood and others asserted that the admitting privileges requirement would have shut down the majority of the state’s 38 abortion facilities as many hospitals will not work with abortionists.
 
On Monday, in a 26-page opinion, Judge Yeakel agreed with Planned Parenthood and others.

“The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman’s health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her,” he wrote. “The court will enjoin enforcement of that provision.”
 
A similar law surrounding admitting privileges was also halted earlier this year in Mississippi and was likewise appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
While finding parts of the medicinal abortion rules to be sound, Yeakel struck down other provisions, stating that they do not allow the abortionist to make his own decisions on how to handle individual abortions.
 
“Although the medication- abortion provisions do not generally place an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion, they do if they ban a medication abortion where a physician determines, in appropriate medical judgment, such a procedure is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” he stated.
 
Following the release of Yeakel’s decision, abortion advocacy groups cheered the defeat of two of the the four components of the new law.
 
“Today’s ruling is a victory for Texas women,” Danielle Well of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas told reporters. “It sends a clear message to lawmakers that politicians have no place in a woman’s medical decisions, and it’s unconstitutional for them to interfere in those decisions.”
 
But Governor Rick Perry vowed to defend the law for as long as it takes.
 
“Today’s decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren’t exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently,” he said in a statement. “We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly-elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans.”
 
Texas regulations barring abortions after 20 weeks and requiring abortion facilities to meet surgical center standards were not a part of the lawsuit. As abortionists in the state advise that the vast majority of abortions occur before 20 weeks, the late term-abortion ban will go into effect today as planned—unchallenged.

http://christiannews.net/2013/10/29/bush-appointed-judge-strikes-down-part-of-texas-abortion-law-as-undue-burden-on-women/

WOW, by making sure tha the baby killer has admitting rights to a hospital is an "undue burdon" on the babys mom? Really?
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2013, 01:56:40 pm »

Bush-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Part of Texas Abortion Law as ‘Undue Burden’ on Women


A Dubya appointed judge?

So where is all the outrage from James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Paige Patterson, Hal Lindsey, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, etc over THIS? Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2013, 05:48:15 am »

Ruling halts abortions at third of Texas' clinics


AUSTIN, Texas (November 1, 2013)- A third of the abortion clinics in Texas can no longer perform the procedure starting Friday after a federal appeals court allowed most of the state's new abortion restrictions to take effect.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Thursday evening that Texas can enforce its law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel determined that the provision violated the U.S. Constitution and said it serves no medical purpose.

The panel's ruling is not final, and a different panel of judges will likely hear the case in January. But in the meantime, Texas clinics will have to follow the order. Twelve of the 32 clinics in Texas that perform abortions don't have doctors who have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, meaning they won't be able to perform the procedure, though they can provide other services.

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the new provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."

Although several conservative states in recent months have approved broad abortion limits, the Texas ones were particularly divisive because of the number of clinics affected and the distance some women would have to travel to get an abortion.

After Yeakel ruled Monday, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had made an emergency appeal to the 5th Circuit, arguing that the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges is a constitutional use of the Legislature's authority.

"This unanimous decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women," Abbott, a Republican who is running for governor, said in a written statement after Thursday's decision.

Planned Parenthood said the ruling means "abortion will no longer be available in vast stretches of Texas." Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers had argued that the regulations do not protect women.

"This fight is far from over," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a statement. "This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide."

The appeals court left in place a portion of Yeakel's order that prevents the state from enforcing the 18-year-old U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for abortion-inducing drugs in cases where the woman is between 50 and 63 days into her pregnancy. Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.

The law that the Legislature passed this summer also bans abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and beginning in October 2014 requires doctors to perform all abortions in surgical facilities.

The restrictions are among the toughest in the nation and gained notoriety when Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster against them in June. Davis has since launched her own gubernatorial campaign and could face Abbott in the November 2014 election.

Officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified during the trial that Yeakel oversaw that they've tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision. Many hospitals with religious affiliations will not allow abortion doctors to work there, while others fear protests if they provide privileges. Many have requirements that doctors live within a certain radius of the facility, or perform a minimum number of surgeries a year that must be done in a hospital.

Federal judges in Wisconsin, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama all have found problems with state laws prohibiting doctors from conducting abortions if they don't have hospital admitting privileges.

Mississippi is also in the 5th Circuit, and the appeals court in that case had left in place a temporary injunction preventing the law from being enforced. But unlike in the Mississippi case, Yeakel's order was a final decision, setting the groundwork for the 5th Circuit to review the merits of the law.

 - See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/legal/ruling-halts-abortions-at-third-of-texas-clinics#sthash.hmNT1Rdm.dpuf
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2013, 12:35:53 pm »

This was as expected - pretty much a temporary injunction, as this case will move forward to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in January.

If anything, this case will be a big lightning rod for next year's TX governor election(one of the candidates being Wendy Davis).
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2013, 02:47:12 pm »

This was as expected - pretty much a temporary injunction, as this case will move forward to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in January.

If anything, this case will be a big lightning rod for next year's TX governor election(one of the candidates being Wendy Davis).

Kind of obvious how they are setting things up for the election.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2013, 10:27:44 pm »

The headline is misleading - all the USSC did was uphold the TEMPORARY INJUNCTION made by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals(to let this TX law passed stand for now) - otherwise, the 5CCA will hear the case in January.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-abortion-law-stands-supreme-court-splits-5-015300460.html
11/19/13
Texas abortion law stands: Supreme Court splits 5-4 on hearing the case

A new Texas law requiring doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges has forced more than a dozen clinics in the state to close. The case is on a path back to the Supreme Court.


The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a tough new Texas law that has forced more than a dozen abortion clinics in the state to close their doors.

The justices split 5 to 4 on whether to block the law. The action came in a controversial case over abortion restrictions that is likely to find its way quickly back to the high court in the months ahead.

In the meantime, the law will remain in full effect pending an appeal at the New Orleans-based Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals.

That court is set to hear oral arguments in January.

The new law, which took effect last month, requires any physician performing an abortion at a Texas clinic to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

Obtaining such privileges is difficult and the new requirement has caused roughly one-third of the state’s abortion clinics to close their doors while leaving an estimated 20,000 Texas women without such services, according to abortion rights advocates.

“This law is blocking women in Texas from getting a safe and legal medical procedure that has been their constitutionally protected right for 40 years,” said Cecil Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement.

“This is outrageous and unacceptable,” she said.

Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, hailed the high court’s action as a significant step forward.

“This ruling signals that Texas is on the verge of a decisive legal pro-life victory,” she said. “The recent closures of abortion clinics, even if temporary, prove that [the Texas law] does have a major impact in protecting women and their unborn children from substandard care at abortion clinics.”

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the justices should intervene in the case to block the Texas law from being enforced while the expedited appeal to the Fifth Circuit is underway.

Abortion rights advocates had asked the courts to uphold an injunction issued by a federal judge who ruled last month that the new Texas law was overly restrictive of a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. After declaring the law unconstitutional, the judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the statute pending any appeals.

Texas officials appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit and asked the appeals court to lift the federal judge’s injunction. The appeals court did so.

Abortion providers in Texas filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to preserve the status quo in Texas so that abortion clinics could remain open during the ongoing appeals.

In declining the block the law, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the appeals court’s earlier decision was based on its conclusion that Texas officials were likely to prevail in the case, with the new statute being upheld as constitutional.

The justices owed deference to the appeals court’s conclusion, he said.

“It would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional,” Justice Scalia wrote in a four-page order.

“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case,” he said. “But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards.”

In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan said they would have taken action to block the new Texas law.

Justice Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said that the federal judge’s initial injunction would have preserved the status quo, allowing clinics to remain open and serve women in their communities as the litigation continued.

“By putting Texas’ new law into immediate effect, it instantly leaves 24 counties in the Rio Grande Valley… with no abortion provider because those providers do not have admitting privileges and are unlikely to get them,” Breyer wrote in a 5-page dissent. He added that the new law “may substantially reduce access to safe abortions elsewhere in Texas.”

Breyer said that the underlying legal issue concerning the constitutionality of the Texas law “is a difficult question.”

“Lawmakers in Texas and other states have passed laws like this for the sole purpose of limiting access to safe, legal abortion, not promote women’s health,” Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the Texas law was “unworkable, unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

“The shattering stories of women turned away at clinic doors and denied their constitutional right to abortion are already numerous, and they multiply every single day this underhanded law is enforced,” Ms. Northup said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah 8:11  For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 10:29:35 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2013, 10:34:27 pm »

Quote
In declining the block the law, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the appeals court’s earlier decision was based on its conclusion that Texas officials were likely to prevail in the case, with the new statute being upheld as constitutional.

The justices owed deference to the appeals court’s conclusion, he said.

“It would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional,” Justice Scalia wrote in a four-page order.

“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case,” he said. “But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards.”

Well speak for yourself, Justice Scalia! Didn't you rule the opposite in the OK case recently? Roll Eyes

US top court rejects pre-abortion ultrasound case
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,9658.0.html
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2014, 05:56:54 pm »

US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules
3/27/14

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Texas' tough abortion restrictions that have forced the closure of nearly 20 clinics around the state, saying the new rules don't jeopardize women's health.

A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and served no medical purpose. Despite the lower court's ruling, the appeals court already had allowed some rules to go into effect while it considered the case. The latest decision means more regulations will begin later this year, as scheduled, and sets the case up for a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its opinion, the appeals court said the law "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman."

Planned Parenthood, which sued to block the law, called the ruling "terrible" and said that "safe and legal abortion will continue to be virtually impossible for thousands of Texas women to access."

"The latest restrictions in Texas will force women to have abortions later in pregnancy, if they are able to get to a doctor at all," Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Votes, said in a statement. The American Civil Liberties Union said "The law is having a devastating impact on women in Texas, and the court should have struck it down."

Texas lawmakers last summer passed some of the toughest restrictions in the U.S. on when, where and how women may obtain an abortion. The Republican-controlled Legislature required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and placed strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills.

Debate of the law drew thousands of demonstrators on both sides of the issue to the state Capitol in Austin and sparked a 12-plus hour filibuster by state Sen. Wendy Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat who succeeded in temporarily blocking passage. Though the restrictions later passed overwhelmingly, Davis catapulted to political stardom and is now running for governor.

The office of Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is also running for governor, defended the law in court.

Republican leaders in Texas oppose abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. In passing the new rules, they argued they were protecting the health of the woman.

But abortion-rights supporters called the measures an attempt to effectively ban abortion statewide through overregulation. Many abortion doctors do not have admitting privileges and limiting when and where they may prescribe abortion-inducing pills discourages women from choosing that option, they say.

Other aspects of the new rules, including a requirement that all procedures take place in a surgical facility, do not take effect until September.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled in October that the provisions place an unconstitutional burden on women's access to abortion.

Three days after Yeakel's ruling, the 5th Circuit allowed Texas to enforce the law while the state appealed the decision. Some 19 clinics have shut down since, leaving 24 still open to serve a population of 26 million Texans. More closures could happen after the additional restrictions are in place.

Regardless, the Supreme Court probably will have the last word on the restrictions. The court's four liberal justices already have indicated they are inclined to hear an appeal.

In November, the four dissented from a high court ruling that upheld the 5th Circuit's decision to allow Texas to enforce the law while the appeal proceeded.

Justice Stephen Breyer called the issue of the law's constitutionality a difficult question. "It is a question, I believe, that at least four members of this court will wish to consider irrespective of the Fifth Circuit's ultimate decision," Breyer wrote in a brief opinion that was joined by Justices Rith Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Five votes constitute a majority on the nine-justice court, but it takes only four to grant full review of a lower court ruling.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-appeals-court-upholds-texas-abortion-rules-205911473.html
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2014, 06:08:51 pm »

 Huh Didn't they say TX's new abortion restrictions law are so strict, that 19 facilities closed? But somehow THIS?

http://news.yahoo.com/abortion-clinic-planned-texas-law-closes-facilities-150542801--finance.html
3/27/14
New abortion clinic planned for Texas as law closes facilities

DALLAS (Reuters) - Planned Parenthood will open a $5 million surgical abortion facility in San Antonio in a few months as other providers have been forced to close because of stringent restrictions passed by Texas lawmakers last year.

The facility is expected to be completed by September, when new restrictions take effect, imposing surgical center standards for abortion clinics, even those that perform nonsurgical medication abortions.

Opponents of the regulations said they are a veiled attempt to shut clinics by imposing unnecessary and costly requirements, while supporters maintain they are aimed at protecting women's health and should be adopted by other states.

Since Texas enacted the law, which requires a physician to have admitting privileges at an appropriately equipped hospital within 30 miles, a third of clinics in the state have been closed, leaving 19 for a population of 26 million.

Once the ambulatory surgical center regulation goes into effect on September 1, only about six abortion clinics would likely be able to meet all of the new requirements, Planned Parenthood said. The six would be in San Antonio, Houston, Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth.

**Which is pretty much all of the big cities in TX, save maybe El Paso.

"Women may have the right to legal abortion in theory, but in practice, this right is vanishing for many women in Texas," Planned Parenthood South Texas spokeswoman Mara Posada said on Thursday.

More states have passed abortion restrictions during the last two years than in the previous decade, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group supporting the right to abortion whose reports are cited by both sides in the debate.

Texas, seen as an incubator of conservative policies, has garnered a great deal of attention because its regulations have so far survived court challenges while many others have not.

**Like I mentioned in other threads - TX is NOT this "conservative" state everyone tries to make it out to be. There are ALOT of megachurches here(ie-John Hagee, Ed Young Jr, Joel Osteen, just to name a few of the reprobates). With that being said - yes, I find it strange how other states haven't survived court challenges with this like TX has - maybe it's part of their Hegelian Dialectic game, I don't know.

"Texas has shown to other states what happens when restrictions are allowed to go into effect," said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute.

Two neighboring states - Oklahoma and Louisiana - are proposing similar admitting privileges restrictions, with the Oklahoma House of Representatives approving the measure by a wide margin last month.

**Didn't OK recently strike down its SSM ban, and allow a statute of Satan on state property? Isn't Louisiana predominantly runned by Catholics? Pt being that don't ignore the elephant in the room.

Last year, Texas was one of four states that adopted an admitting privileges requirement. Alabama and Wisconsin laws are currently blocked by pending litigation. North Dakota's only abortion facility was able to secure admitting privileges and remain open, the Guttmacher Institute said.

Admitting privileges allow a doctor, who is typically recognized as a staff member of a hospital, to admit a patient to that facility. It is common sense to make that a requirement for abortion providers, according to Joe Pojman, director of the anti-abortion group, Texas Alliance for Life.

"In the event of a serious complication from an abortion, the physician should be able to follow the patient to the emergency room to continue caring for his or her patient," Pojman said.

The provisions effectively shut down many abortion clinics in rural areas in Texas, a large state where hospitals are far removed from many clinics.

The Texas Hospital Association, which represents more the 400 hospitals, called the restrictions unnecessary because women experiencing abortion complications already can go to a hospital emergency room and be treated.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2014, 12:30:06 pm »

Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It
Regardless of what the judicial system does with Texas’s antiabortion law, its on-the-ground effects are unlikely to be reversed.




When Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a sweeping anti-abortion law in 2013, he did so knowing the measure faced an uncertain future. Indeed, the law is already winding its way through the legal system, and if its opponents have their way, Texas's reproductive legal code will land in the hands of the Supreme Court.

But such a decision is likely a year or years a way, and back in the Lone Star State, the final judicial score won't much matter.

The law has already had tremendous success in closing abortion clinics and restricting abortion access in Texas. And those successes appear all but certain to stick—with or without the Supreme Court's approval of the law that created them.

There were more than 40 clinics that provided abortions in Texas in 2011. There are now 20 still open, and after the law's last steps of implementation are taken in September, all but six are expected to close. Most of the closed clinics will never reopen, their operators say.

Few businesses could survive a years-long hibernation, and that's all the more true for clinics, providers say. The added difficulty of finding qualified doctors, getting new licences, and navigating state health department regulations is a hurdle higher than most closed clinics are likely to clear—especially in a state where a sizable portion of the public is vehemently opposed to abortion and unwilling to aid it in any way.

"I can't find anyone to deliver water or resurface the parking lot, because they're against abortion. I can't get someone to fix a leak in the roof," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women's Health.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—which covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana—upheld the law as constitutional. Additionally, the court declined a request to keep two of the law's provisions, both of which were instrumental in the clinic closures, from taking effect before the legal struggle over the law is completed.

The clinic closures will increase as the law phases in a set of requirements for abortion facilities. The first set, which included a requirement that doctors performing the procedure have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, went into effect last November, prompting many clinics to close. The final set of restrictions—that all abortions, including drug-induced, be performed in ambulatory surgical centers—takes effect in September.

Hagstrom Miller's company had five abortion facilities and one ambulatory surgical center in Texas in 2013. Two closed as a result of the admitting-privilege requirement in March, and it's likely that only the surgical center in San Antonio will remain by September.

"The opposition has been extremely strategic," Hagstrom Miller said. "This law is perfectly crafted."

Ambulatory surgical centers are facilities that conduct outpatient or same-day surgical procedures, and must meet specific requirements regarding infrastructure, procedures, and equipment. The centers cost far more to run than abortion clinics, and would cost several million dollars to build from the ground up.

Hagstrom Miller also said it has been impossible to find hospitals that will agree to give admitting privileges to abortion providers, or ambulatory surgical centers that will sell or lease their facilities. Leasing or buying the space itself is expensive and difficult, and Hagstrom Miller currently has mortgages on three buildings, which she will have to sell. She purchased those under a different name, and did construction without associating them with Whole Woman's Health out of concern that she wouldn't get permitting or might attract protests.

The antiabortion coalition that backs the law sees all of this as sound public policy, arguing that the law's restrictions were put in place to protect women seeking medical care, and if the centers can't meet them, then they should be closed and stay closed.

"If the state is passing regulations that are similar or equivalent to those that all other medical facilities provide, and some [clinics] close because they're not meeting standards that other medical facilities have to meet, I don't see a problem with that," said Dan McConchie, vice president for government affairs at Americans United for Life, an advocacy group that worked on parts of the Texas legislation.

The six remaining abortion clinics come September will be clustered in major cities, which opponents of the law argue unfairly disadvantages women in rural areas—particularly the Rio Grande Valley—who tend to be poorer and less able to travel long distances for an abortion. Those clinics that remain will be serving more women with fewer doctors, leading to longer wait times and delayed procedures, the opponents say.

The legal struggle over the law continues, but in Texas, the law's challengers are looking beyond their state's borders. Following a broad Republican conquest of statehouses in 2010, a wave of state-level antiabortion laws have been passed—including in states whose circuit courts abortion rights groups hope will be more sympathetic to their arguments.

As challenges to those laws work their way up the legal system, opponents of the Texas law are hoping for a circuit-court ruling that is incompatible with the 5th Circuit appeals decision. Such a contradiction would open the possibility of the entire issue being elevated to the Supreme Court, where—depending on the scope of the decision—Texas's law could either be upheld or struck down.

But the U.S. judicial system is a deliberative one, and with the request for a stay denied, the Texas law is unlikely to be voided anytime soon.

"[A decision] is a ways away," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the suit filed against the Texas legislation. "I dont think it would be next year; more likely in the year after that."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/texas-is-permanently-shutting-abortion-clinics-and-the-supreme-court-can-t-do-anything-about-it-20140505
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2014, 05:20:16 pm »

After this is successful, HOPEFULLY they can remove all of the FLOURIDE out of the water system, MSG/Aspertame/etc out of our food supply, etc.

Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21754



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2014, 06:53:51 am »

20 and Counting: Abortion Facilities Continue to Close Due to Texas Pro-Life Law

A north Texas abortion center has become the twentieth abortion facility in the Lone Star State to close its doors as a result of pro-life legislation recently signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry.

For over 30 years, Northpark Medical Group has offered abortion procedures to women in the Dallas area. The facility’s website describes the center as “being the foremost and preeminent provider of first and second trimester abortion services up to 15 weeks in the Dallas area.”

According to reports, Northpark Medical Group is affiliated with Texas abortionist Douglas Karpen. As previously reported, Karpen allegedly killed babies born alive during late-term abortion procedures, but he was cleared of all wrongdoings by a Texas grand jury late last year.

Now, Karpen’s Northpark Medical Group abortion center in Dallas has reportedly closed its doors because its abortionists failed to meet required health standards. Specifically, the abortionists were unable to meet the increased health standards of a pro-life bill—HB2—signed by Governor Rick Perry last summer.

As previously reported, HB2 bans most abortions after 20 weeks gestation and requires all abortion facilities to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Pro-abortion activists have condemned the new standards, saying Texas politicians are robbing women of their “reproductive rights.” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, argued that “women are suffering” as a result of the pro-life measures.

“A small group of politicians bent on imposing their personal agenda on every Texan have created a health care catastrophe for women of all backgrounds, but especially those who are low income, rural and women of color,” Richards wrote in a column this week. “Women are suffering, and it’s time to put an end to this appalling situation.”

Despite the outcry from pro-abortion lobbyists, 20 abortion facilities in Texas have closed their doors since last summer. According to a USA Today report, only half a dozen abortion facilities might still be open by the end of this year, which is a significant decrease from the 41 facilities operating in the state just three years ago.

Meanwhile, pro-life advocates say the abortion center closings are very encouraging. Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition and an early supporter of HB2, told Christian News Network that abortion facilities have a long history of unsafe health conditions.

“We have long heard complaints about many of these abortion doctors,” Wright said, “but the women often go silent out of shame, privacy issues, or as a requirement of any favorable settlement.”

Even pro-choice women are often appalled by conditions in abortion facilities, Wright added. And the conditions at Northpark Medical Group in Dallas were no different, she said.

“One of the abortion doctors linked to this clinic had been disciplined by the Texas Medical Board and another was 84 years old,” Wright stated. “It is troubling that these doctors cannot meet the hospital credentialing requirements at any of the nearby hospitals.”

Wright also asserted that the requirements outlined in HB2 are similar to those enforced upon normal hospitals by credentialing committees.

“Hospital credentialing committees want to know about past malpractice issues, continuing education, loss of privileges at other hospitals, etc.,” she explained. “They also generally want proof of insurance and letters of recommendation from other doctors. Any reputable surgeon should readily be able to supply these things. Again, it troubling that these [abortionists] cannot.”

Wright confirmed to Christian News Network that additional abortion facilities in Texas will likely close by later this year.

“When the final element of HB2 goes into effect September 1, all but seven [abortion facilities] have indicated they will close, rather than upgrade their facilities to meet the ambulatory surgical center requirement,” she stated.

Overall, Wright said that the closures will result in greater protection for both women and babies in the state.

“Obviously, fewer abortion clinics means fewer women and babies hurt by abortion,” she said.

http://christiannews.net/2014/05/22/20-and-counting-abortion-facilities-continue-to-close-due-to-texas-pro-life-law/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2014, 09:48:28 am »

Well, we'll see where this goes from here - IOW, don't be fooled by all this - from what I've read, this state is pushing abortion drugs like this RUI(or whatever it's called). IOW, looks like Big Pharma is looking for an opportunity to cash in(among other things).

As for this state of Texas being "true blue conservative"? Again, don't let this fool you - there's LOTS of megachurches here, and one of the First Baptists in my area keeps doing Rick Warren's PDL nonsense.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2014, 07:38:14 pm »

http://theweek.com/article/index/265441/why-texas-abortion-rates-arent-falling-as-quickly-as-everyone-expected
Why Texas' abortion rates aren't falling as quickly as everyone expected

It's not the first time a barrage of anti-abortion legislation hasn't had the desired effect

7/29/14

In the months since Texas' controversial abortion restrictions began to go into effect, the state's health-care landscape has been transformed.

A new study conducted by researchers at the University of Texas's Policy Evaluation Project found that since state legislators passed HB2 — the raft of restrictions on abortion doctors and facilities made famous last summer by Wendy Davis' marathon filibuster — 19 of Texas's 41 abortion clinics have closed their doors. The closures are thanks to a provision of HB2 that requires abortion providers to receive admitting privileges at local hospitals, a hurdle that has been impossible for many doctors to surmount.

Today, vast swathes of the state have no abortion clinics. The researchers estimate that 290,000 reproductive-age Texas women live more than 200 miles from an abortion facility, up from just 10,000 in April 2013.

There was no way, given the meteoric decline in the number of providers, that the abortion rate wasn't going to fall. The question was by how much. In the study, which provides a rare and fascinating view into the law's real-time effects, the UT researchers found that the state was on track to see 13 percent fewer abortions annually. It's a steeper drop than the national average, but nowhere near the catastrophic levels that the clinic closures might have spurred. "In some ways, we were expecting a bigger decline," Dan Grossman, one of the authors of the report, told the Texas Tribune.

Why isn't the new law working as well as anti-abortion advocates might have hoped? It's not the first time a barrage of such legislation hasn't had the desired effect.

Beginning in the 1990s, anti-abortion legislators began to impose laws designed to convince women not to have abortions. The requirements were tailored to help women understand the gravity of their decision. Twenty-three states required doctors to provide an ultrasound before an abortion, so women could see their embryo or fetus. Thirty-five states mandated pre-abortion counseling, including — in some states — information about the fetus' ability to feel pain and the assertion that life begins at conception. Twenty-six states required a waiting period, usually 24 hours, between the counseling and the procedure. The abortion rate continued to decline slowly — as it has every year since 1992 — but the laws had no discernable effect.

By passing these laws targeted at women, anti-abortion legislators were hoping to decrease demand for abortion. When that didn't work, they turned to laws like HB2, which affect supply. If more clinics close, one might reasonably assume, the demand for abortion will also decline, either because wait times at the existing facilities are too long or because women will decide that an abortion isn't worth the hassle or expense. After all, the cost of an abortion increases exponentially with each passing month; after the first trimester, the price moves into quadruple digits.

HB2 did have a significant impact on one kind of abortion: medication abortion, which allows women to terminate an early pregnancy with a pill. The law limits the use of medication abortion to the first seven weeks of pregnancy (the scientific consensus says that it can be used up to nine weeks) and requires four trips to the clinic. According to the UT study, the use of medication abortion dropped by a staggering 70 percent. Nationally, medication abortion accounts for 23 percent of nonhospital abortions.

But the decline in drug-induced abortion means that sizable numbers of women are just waiting later to have a more expensive surgical procedure, sometimes driving twice to a facility that's hundreds of miles away. They've been assisted in the past year by Texas groups who raise money to help subsidize the cost of abortion procedures, especially for low-income women who need to make a long trip. But these groups are small and their resources are limited, leaving much of the financial burden on the women.

All of this reinforces the fact that abortion opponents will have to make the procedure all but illegal before the legal abortion rate will fall dramatically. In economic terms, abortion is inelastic — unaffected by price. Unfortunately, what's about to happen in Texas won't just increase the cost, it will make abortions nearly impossible to obtain.

Beginning in September, clinics will be required to comply with another provision of HB2, which mandates that all abortions take place in ambulatory surgical centers — essentially minihospitals. Only six of the 22 remaining abortion providers qualify as ASCs, and few of the non-ASCs will be able to make the costly renovations to bring their facilities up to code. The UT researchers found that 22 percent of abortions in the state take place at ASCs, raising questions about how much of the demand they'll be able to handle. At the same time, cuts to family-planning funding that went into effect in 2011 are making it difficult for women to access the birth control they want.

As a result, the number of unintended births will almost certainly climb. But Grossman says it's also likely that the number of self-induced abortions, often using off-brand versions of the abortion pill, will increase. That's because cutting off the supply of abortions won't reduce demand — it will force women to take increasingly drastic measures to get the procedure.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2014, 06:54:06 pm »

Federal judge halts key part of Texas abortion law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/29/federal-judge-halts-key-part-texas-abortion-law/
8/29/14

AUSTIN, Texas –  A federal judge Friday threw out new Texas abortion restrictions that would have effectively closed more than a dozen clinics in the state.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel sided with clinics that sued over one of the most disputed measures of a sweeping anti-abortion bill signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2013. The ruling stops new restrictions that would have left seven abortion facilities in Texas come Monday. There are currently 19 abortion providers in the state, according to groups challenging the law.

"The overall effect of the provisions is to create an impermissible obstacle as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion," Yeakel wrote in his 21-page ruling.

The trial in Texas was the latest battle over tough new abortion restrictions sweeping across the U.S. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who is the favorite to become governor next year, vowed to appeal to try to uphold the law.

The law would require abortion facilities in Texas to meet hospital-level operating standards, which supporters say will protect women's health.

Clinics called it a backdoor effort to outlaw abortions, which has been a constitutional right since the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

"It's an undue burden for women in Texas -- and thankfully today the court agreed," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman's Health, which would have been among the clinic operators affected. "The evidence has been stacking up against the state and against the politicians who so cynically passed these laws in the name of safety."

The more stringent Texas requirements -- such as mandatory operating rooms and air filtration systems -- would have effectively shuttered 18 licensed abortion clinics. Some already no longer offer abortions after another part of the 2013 bill required doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

That part of the law has already been upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans, where the state will now seek a second reversal.

"The State disagrees with the court's ruling and will seek immediate relief from the Fifth Circuit, which has already upheld" the law once, Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean said.

Similar rules on admitting privileges have been blocked by federal courts in Mississippi, Kansas and Wisconsin.

Attorneys for the state denied that women would be burdened by fewer abortion facilities, saying nearly 9 in 10 women in Texas would still live within 150 miles of a provider. Critics say that still leaves nearly a million Texas women embarking on drives longer than three hours to get an abortion.

Opposition to the Texas law was so visible that Democrat Wendy Davis launched her campaign for governor behind the celebrity she achieved through a nearly 13-hour filibuster last summer that temporarily blocked the bill in the state Senate.

Her opponent in November is Abbott.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2014, 01:39:04 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-abortion-clinic-reopen-court-ruling-210936930.html
Texas abortion clinic to reopen after court ruling
9/3/14

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Women in South Texas facing a 200-mile drive for access to legal abortions learned Wednesday that a local clinic shuttered by a sweeping anti-abortion law would reopen, marking the first tangible effect of a court ruling last week that blocked key parts of the state law.

Whole Woman's Health clinic in McAllen, a city near the Mexico border, closed in March after its doctors said they couldn't obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals as the state now requires. But a federal judge ruled Friday that the law created unconstitutional barriers to abortions in South Texas, and the clinic is now set to reopen later this week, chief executive Amy Hagstrom Miller said.

Questions are now also being raised about whether the ruling had other broader ramifications than first thought.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made two key rulings in Friday's 21-page decision. He struck down a mandate that required all abortion clinics in Texas to adopt costly hospital-level operating standards and exempted clinics in McAllen and El Paso from an already upheld requirement that doctors who perform abortions obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

A four-day trial last month narrowly focused on the El Paso and McAllen areas because clinics there serve regions where access to abortions would otherwise be particularly difficult. But language Yeakel included in a separate final judgment has left some questioning whether his order — inadvertently or not — banned the admitting-privileges law at all Texas abortion clinics.

State health officials say they're playing it safe pending guidance from a federal appeals court.

"We would have definitely cited those as violations," Department of State Health Services spokeswoman Carrie Williams said of clinics that would have been in violation of the admitting-privileges law prior to Friday's ruling. "Now we're going to need to parse that out on a case-by-case basis."

Texas currently has 19 abortion providers — already down from more than 40 just two years ago, according to groups that sued the state for the second time over the law known as HB2. Only seven would have remained in business had Yeakel sided with the state.

Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott also noted that Yeakel's decision "appears to invalidate the admitting-privileges law across the board" in an appeal filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans.

That court has scheduled a hearing for Sept. 12.

Until then, Hagstrom Miller, who runs the Whole Woman's Health clinic, said she is already taking weekend appointments for her McAllen facility. When the clinic closed, women seeking an abortion had to embark on a nearly 500-mile round-trip drive to San Antonio to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. Hagstrom Miller said the McAllen clinic had been performing 40 to 45 abortions each week prior to closure.

She said that Whole Woman's Health is for now interpreting Yeakel's ruling "a little more conservatively" than others who might view the decision as a possible sweeping repeal. But she said re-opening the McAllen clinic alone would have a dramatic impact.

"We are more than resilient in the face of these threats. We are stronger and more determined than ever," she said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: October 14, 2014, 11:11:52 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-stop-parts-texas-abortion-law-223922271--politics.html
Justices stop parts of Texas abortion law
10/14/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked key parts of a 2013 law in Texas that had closed all but eight facilities providing abortions in America's second most-populous state.

In an unsigned order, the justices sided with abortion rights advocates and health care providers in suspending an Oct. 2 ruling by a panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that Texas could immediately apply a rule making abortion clinics statewide spend millions of dollars on hospital-level upgrades.

The court also put on hold a provision of the law only as it applies to clinics in McAllen and El Paso that requires doctors at the facilities to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The admitting privileges rule remains in effect elsewhere in Texas.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have ruled against the clinics in all respects.

The 5th Circuit is still considering the overall constitutionality of the sweeping measure overwhelmingly passed by the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last year.

Even as it weighs the merits of the law, the appeals court had said it could be enforced — opening the door for the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

"We're seeing the terrible impact these restrictions have on thousands of Texas women who effectively no longer have access to safe and legal abortion," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "We're relieved that the court stepped in to stop this, and we hope this dangerous law is ultimately overturned completely."

Abortion opponents predicted they will ultimately prevail.

"This does not protect the health and safety of women who are undergoing abortion," said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. ""This is definitely a short-term loss, but not necessarily a long- term loss."

The 5th Circuit decision had blocked an August ruling by Austin-based U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who had found that requiring hospital-style upgrades was less about safety than making access to abortion difficult. Yeakel's ruling temporarily suspended the upgrade rules before they could go into effect Sept. 1 — and the order from the Supreme Court means they are on hold again.

Allowing the rules on hospital-level upgrades to be enforced — including mandatory operating rooms and air filtration systems — shuttered more than a dozen clinics across Texas.

Until the nation's highest court intervened, only abortion facilities in the Houston, Austin, San Antonio and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas remained open. And none was left along the Texas-Mexico border or outside any of the state's largest urban areas.

Some other clinics had closed even earlier amid enforcement of the rule on admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. That portion has already been upheld twice by the appeals court.

The fight over the Texas law is the latest over tough new abortion restrictions that have been enacted across the country. The office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who is the favorite in next month's governor's race, is leading the defense of the law.

Democrat Wendy Davis launched her campaign for governor behind the celebrity she achieved through a nearly 13-hour filibuster last summer that temporarily blocked the law's passage. Davis said she was "thankful that women can continue to make their own personal decisions." Abbott's office said he would continue to defend the law.

Attorneys for the state have denied that Texas women would be burdened by fewer abortion facilities, saying nearly 9 in 10 would still live within 150 miles of a provider. The law's opponents note that leaves nearly a million Texas women embarking on drives longer than three hours to get an abortion.

Hilltop Women's Reproductive Services in El Paso has been referring women who want abortions to another clinic it owns in New Mexico. Gloria Martinez, Hilltop's administrative nurse, said she would call state officials Wednesday before deciding whether the clinic will resume performing abortions.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy