{"id":96957,"date":"2016-07-01T10:24:53","date_gmt":"2016-07-01T14:24:53","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=96957"},"modified":"2016-08-31T17:30:29","modified_gmt":"2016-08-31T21:30:29","slug":"pro-abortion-justices-relied-on-faulty-logic-in-abortion-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-justices-relied-on-faulty-logic-in-abortion-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Pro-abortion justices relied on faulty logic in abortion decision"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

While the pro-life movement decries the major setback of the 5-3 outcome in favor of the abortion movement in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, <\/em>the abortion movement celebrates.<\/p>\n

But\u00a0in her concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader\u00a0Ginsburg\u00a0reveals a\u00a0premise is that is relatively simple, but\u00a0very flawed. To sum up her concurring opinion,\u00a0abortion access trumps safety<\/a>. Her opinion\u00a0is also full of\u00a0debunked<\/a>\u00a0pro-abortion talking points\u00a0—\u00a0that abortion is safe, that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion, and that because of\u00a0the Texas law<\/a>,\u00a0women will be forced\u00a0to turn to\u00a0<\/a>unsafe abortions. Ginsburg writes…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2\u2019s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, \u201ccomplications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.\u201d Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015).\u00a0 See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6\u201310 (collecting studies and concluding \u201c[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States\u201d); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5\u20139 (compiling studies that show \u201c[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low\u201d).<\/p>\n

Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatorysurgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921\u2013922. See also Brief for Social Science Researchers 9\u201311 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting privileges requirements found abortion \u201cis at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpatient settings\u201d).<\/p>\n

Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law \u201cwould simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.\u201d Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 910.\u00a0 When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17\u201322.\u00a0 So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that \u201cdo little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,\u201d Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While Ginsburg cites her debunked claims, she does so by using biased sources. After all,\u00a0the<\/a> ACLU<\/a> and ACOG<\/a> are decidedly pro-abortion.<\/p>\n

Abortion advocates on social media celebrated the decision with #NotoriousRBG\u00a0 on Facebook<\/a> and Twitter.<\/a>\u00a0Several media outlets also hailed Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion:<\/p>\n