{"id":88644,"date":"2016-02-25T09:41:47","date_gmt":"2016-02-25T14:41:47","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=88644"},"modified":"2016-02-24T16:11:04","modified_gmt":"2016-02-24T21:11:04","slug":"oklahoma-supreme-court-sullies-pro-life-ruling-with-potshot-at-abortion-restrictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/oklahoma-supreme-court-sullies-pro-life-ruling-with-potshot-at-abortion-restrictions\/","title":{"rendered":"Oklahoma Supreme Court sullies pro-life ruling with potshot at abortion restrictions"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

While the Oklahoma Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold<\/a> the state\u2019s requirement that administration of abortion drugs comply with FDA standards is certainly good news, it is also disturbing that the court chose to include in its ruling<\/a> the following criticism of pro-life laws:<\/p>\n

\n

We also must recognize that, by the States’ own evidentiary materials, more restrictions on abortions result in higher complication rates and in decreased women’s safety.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I suppose that when a judicial activist can\u2019t find an excuse to strike down the law before him, taking a gratuitous potshot at the broader cause is the next best thing. That\u2019s the first thing about this to immediately jump out\u2014the merits of any other law are completely beyond the scope of the case here. What justification can there be for this aside, other than personal disdain for pro-life legislation?<\/p>\n

As for the weight of the charge, nowhere in the opinion is the supposed danger explained, nor are the state materials allegedly admitting it. And maybe that\u2019s because the reality couldn\u2019t be further from the truth.<\/p>\n

How could pro-life laws increase abortion complication rates? Even abortion-friendly authorities admit<\/a> that abortion\u2019s risks increase the later in pregnancy they\u2019re done, yet pro-aborts are the ones who oppose any limits on when an abortion can be performed. Their spin in response to that would be that the harder an abortion is to get (due to clinic closings, defunding, etc.), the longer it\u2019ll take for a pregnant woman to get one, effectively forcing her abortion to happen in the second trimester.<\/p>\n

While that may sound superficially plausible, the facts don\u2019t fit. First, nobody \u201cneeds\u201d an abortion in the first place, as the \u201cneed\u201d is easily preventable and alternatives are abundant<\/a>. Second, the assumption is starting from a highly dubious baseline\u2014Planned Parenthood boasts of studies demonstrating their extraordinarily safe complication rates for medical abortions, while neglecting to mention that they’re the ones who funded and conducted the studies<\/a>. Third, the Texas example shows that when Planned Parenthood is defunded, abortion and unintended pregnancy rates both<\/em> fall<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But more importantly, all of that is eclipsed by all the other dangers of the abortion industry that pro-life laws fight back against. Take, for instance, the current centerpiece of pro-aborts\u2019 national abortion-as-healthcare narrative: Whole Woman\u2019s Health\u2019s case against Texas\u2019s abortion facility regulations. They claim they\u2019re defending women against dangerous regulations, when in reality WWH locations have been the subject of<\/a> numerous fines, investigations, and disciplinary actions since 2007, for offenses including:<\/p>\n