By CHRISTOPHER MANION
On the morning of March 5, 2020, the Center for Reproductive Rights held a pro-abortion rally in the plaza in front of the steps leading to the United States Supreme Court. Inside, the court was hearing arguments on June Medical, LLC v. Russo, in which an abortuary was challenging Louisiana’s “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.”
The state law, passed in 2014, requires that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location of their abortuary.
The case has attracted widespread attention from the national pro-abortion media, most of which avoid addressing the reason it was passed. So we present here the background provided by Louisiana Right to Life (LRTL):
“In Louisiana, every physician at all outpatient surgical facilities, except abortion facilities, must have ‘admitting privileges’ at a local hospital. These hospital privileges are commonsense safety protections to ensure that when an emergency happens at an outpatient facility, the physician can handle the complication without any delay by having the patient admitted to a local hospital and following up her care there. No matter how frequently complications occur, these protections are standard and should be universal across all outpatient surgical settings.
“The Louisiana Legislature passed the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act,” LRTL continues, “by an overwhelming margin in both the Louisiana Senate (34-3) and the Louisiana House of Representatives (85-6). Legislators of all backgrounds and political parties represented the majorities in both chambers.
“The Louisiana abortion industry has a long record of shoddy practices that jeopardize the health and safety of Louisiana women. As reported in public documents acquired from the Louisiana Department of Health, abortion facility violations in the state include but are not limited to: failures to verify the medical history of patients, failure to monitor how long or how much nitrous oxide was given to patients, failure to perform or document a physical exam of each patient, failure to properly store and safeguard medications, failure to have qualified personnel administer anesthesia, failure to properly sterilize equipment, and failure to ensure that single-use IV fluid was used only once.”
LRTL’s account explains why the major media covering the court’s hearing didn’t mention the facts of the case. They even ignored the act’s proper title. Why? Consider: Who would want to support “unsafe abortions”? After all, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and 197 of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives had all signed on to an amicus brief filed with the court supporting the abortuary. Would these luminaries support “unsafe abortions”? Of course not! Hence: All inconvenient facts must be ignored.
During the court proceedings, Julie Rikelman, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, represented the Louisiana abortuary. She argued that requiring doctors to have admitting privileges would effectively force abortion clinics to close, placing an undue burden on patients. “If the law is upheld, just one doctor at one clinic would be responsible for the about 10,000 Louisiana women seeking abortion services each year,” Rikelman argued.
Elizabeth Murrill, arguing in defense of the Louisiana law, pointed out that admitting privileges merely preserved accepted medical standards, serving as a guarantee of basic health screening that is critical for the protection of women’s health.
“Louisiana’s decision to require abortion providers to have admitting privileges was justified by abundant evidence of life-threatening health and safety violation,” in Louisiana’s abortuaries, Murrill said.
Enter “The Schume”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is known as a danger to unsuspecting citizens walking the halls of the Senate. “Be careful, never get between Schumer and a microphone,” new staffers are warned as they receive their Senate credentials. So Schumer was in his usual bullying form when he spoke at the pro-abortion rally.
Claiming to defend what he called “fundamental [abortion] rights,” he turned around from the crowd in a melodramatic moment of feigned fury to point at the Supreme Court building: “I wanna tell you, Gorsuch.” He shouted, “I wanna tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
John Roberts, the court’s Chief Justice, was quick to respond. “This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’ Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
Schumer responded with sniveling contempt. “I’m from Brooklyn,” he observed — failing to apologize for thus slandering his New York constituents.
Schumer was then blindsided by the American Bar Association, which is rarely a friend of conservative jurisprudence. ABA President Judy Perry Martinez issued a statement shortly after Schumer’s threatening comments, writing: “The American Bar Association is deeply troubled by today’s statements from the Senate Minority Leader threatening two sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court over their upcoming votes in a pending case. Whatever one thinks about the merits of an issue before a court, there is no place for threats — whether real or allegorical.”
At that point, the chastened Schume issued another classic of prevarication, alleging that, “Of course, I did not intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”
The Schume Struts
As Satan Sneers
What’s at stake here? Well, last year saw a flurry of states, including Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ohio, pass pro-life heartbeat bills banning abortion from the moment a heartbeat can be detected via ultrasound. A sixth state (Missouri) passed an abortion ban at eight weeks gestation, premised on the fact that a heartbeat can be reliably detected by ultrasound at that gestational age.
These heartbeat bills promise to be an important legislative objective for pro-life advocates in 2020 as well. Population Research Institute researcher Jonathan Abbamonte maintains a “legislative tracker” at pop.org tracking the various pro-life bills being considered across the country. “Several more states are considering heartbeat bills,” he writes, “including (so far) South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and, for the first time, New Hampshire. Lawmakers in Idaho have also hinted at introducing a first-ever heartbeat bill.”
As the Democrat Party has become more radically pro-abortion, it has also become more vicious. Pro-lifers have pulled back the curtain on the blood-lust of the abortion-for-body-parts business. The hired killers have responded to the revelations not with shame but with rage. Today Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh are the targets of the Satanic libido dominandi that has ensnared the Schume and his killer cohorts.
This is war, and, as Sen. Hiram Johnson observed a century ago, in war the first casualty is truth.
Satan loves abortion. Yes, it kills not only the body of the unborn victim, but it feeds the Satanic hatred of life in its champions. Abortion is the Prime Mandate of the Party of Death because it’s logical: After all, if you can kill the most innocent, you can kill anybody.
Get in the way of the Schume and “you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you!”
Be brave, be holy, but be warned.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress