For families like Karnamaya Mongar’s, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was nothing to celebrate.
While some young women cheered a ruling that lets monsters like Kermit Gosnell exploit them, Mongar’s family knows all too well what the five justices’ opinion means for Karnamaya. Karnamaya couldn’t tell these misled girls her story, because she was left to die in Gosnell’s filthy clinic recliner after an overdose of Demerol — most likely administered by one of his 15-year-old anesthetists.
Like them, she probably never believed that ending her baby’s life would cost her her own. But that will be an even greater risk now that our highest court has given abortionists the freedom to treat women — not as patients, but profits.
By tearing down Texas’s law, the Supreme Court gave women access all right — to shoddy care from cold, calculating opportunists. In Pennsylvania, that “care” was an inner-city torture chamber where “semi-conscious, moaning women sat on bloodstained blankets” in rooms that “reeked of urine.” In Delaware, that “access” looks like unsterile instruments held by abortionists who don’t even wear gloves. These are the third-world conditions the Left fought for — and won — on Monday. This is the “progress” that government-funded groups like Planned Parenthood are high-fiving Hillary Clinton over. These are the back-alley abortions the Court just brought inside facilities across Texas.
As Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) argued, “This should not be a pro-life or pro-choice issue. Women deserve access to safe and sanitary conditions, period.” Now, in toppling H.B. 2, moms may be better off at a Texas veterinary clinic than an abortion center.
At least those are regulated! Let’s face it, said a frustrated Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the “Supreme Court has left almost no room for common sense and simple decency in our nation’s approach to abortion.” Already, one Pennsylvania Democrat is using the Court’s decision as an excuse to introduce a repeal of the basic safety standards put in place because of the Gosnell tragedy.
Fortunately for women, that will be a tall order, even in states directly affected by the justices’ activism. The ruling is so muddy, Justice Clarence Thomas railed, that there’s very little consensus on what impact Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt will even have on states’ authority. Of course, that hasn’t stopped the Left from running with the narrative that all of America’s clinics regulations have been overturned. That’s simply not true, since the laws are not only written differently, but many go back to the late 1990s when state legislators like myself first started building some accountability into the abortion industry. While the Court may have cast doubts on laws like Louisiana’s, it doesn’t automatically void them. And most importantly, Monday’s opinion has no effect on Texas’s 20-week abortion ban.
In the meantime, states have a responsibility to protect women’s health. But thanks to the lack of clarity in this opinion, it will be a guessing game as to where elected leaders can draw the boundary lines. If that means more litigation, so be it. Let liberals take this issue to the Supreme Court again and communicate to voters that they believe trained staff, hospital contingency plans, and up-to-date sanitation and fire codes are too excessive for facilitiesoperating on women.
The truth is, nothing about basic safety standards is controversial to anyone except far-Left abortion extremists. According to a survey from the Knights of Columbus this year, an overwhelming majority of Americans — 81 percent — support significant restrictions on abortion. Being “pro-abortion” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re anti-regulation, unless you’re a politician who stands to benefit from the alliance or a clinic hoping to make a fast buck. In their blind obsession with abortion, justices like Steven Breyer even went so far as to claim that even Gosnell’s barbaric acts don’t justify laws like Texas’s.
“Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statues and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.”
How ironic, Carrie Severino points out! That’s the same argument conservatives make about gun control. Yet the liberal justices are so desperate to further their own policy agendas that they’ll not only ignore the court’s precedent (as FRC’s Travis Weber and I discussed on “Washington Watch” yesterday) but their own.
“Does anyone think that the liberal justices would buy that argument in the context of gun control? ‘The Orlando/Sandy hook/Fort Hood/etc. shooter’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.’ And (as Thomas’s dissent notes), the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, rather than emanating from some penumbra.”
And the legal contortionists didn’t stop there. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had the audacity to claim — in open defiance of medical fact — that “complications from abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Tell that to the 26,500 women who experienced abortion-related complications in 2011 alone (3,200 of whom required post-abortion hospitalization). Or meet with Karnamaya Mongar’s family, who are living proof of the grief that awaits any family whose daughter or mother or sister is subjected to the deadly conditions now facilitated by our highest court.
Abortion may be a hotly debated topic, but safety shouldn’t be. This decision is yet another reminder of just what is at stake in the November election.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.