Court: Texas abortion law unlawfully impinges on women’s rights

[Adam]

Court: Texas abortion law unlawfully impinges on women’s rights

AUSTIN – A federal judge enjoined key elements of sweeping abortion restrictions that providers argued would slam shut woman’s access to the procedure throughout the state.

The law was scheduled to go into effect Tuesday, but they judge’s ruling halts enforcement of the provisions.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, an appointee of President George W. Bush, predicted during the three-day trial last week that whatever he decided would be quickly appealed by the losing side and ultimately could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[....]

The state law mandates that doctors performing abortions maintain admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their practice. It also requires that doctors follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocols approved in 2000 for the delivery of abortion pills.

See, now this seems like perfectly good sense to me, particularly with the mantra of "safe, legal, and rare." In the shadow of Gosnell horror show, it seems like it ought to be a pretty good idea to have someone doing abortions: a.) have to have some place that isn't as filthy as a public bathroom in a New York subway, and; b.) have the admitting privileges at a local hospital should something go wrong.

One can argue about the twenty-week thing (though something like 18 other states already have that as their standard), but both of these provisions seem to me to be good, basic consumer protections.

[Lanie]

Any type of safety precaution will now be considered to be infringing on a woman's right. It's all part of mainstream feminism. Nothing wrong with feminism, but the mainstream movement is messed up at times. Damn anybody who has a mind of their own. Some states are even saying that you don't need a doctor. No big deal.

[Adam]

The Fifth Circuit has put the admission privileges restriction back in place.

I'm guessing Planned Abortionhood is intending to take this to the Supremes, which is a little ironic, because South Dakota (I think) passed a law just a year ago (or maybe it was even less) that was specifically targeted to go to the Supreme Court, effectively re-arguing Roe v. Wade. Now that law, at least at its intended purpose, may be moot.