Abortion Activists May be Winning a Few Legal Battles, But They’re Losing the War

National   |   Dave Andrusko   |   Mar 20, 2014   |   9:08AM   |   Washington, DC

So what does pro-abortion scribe Tara Culp-Ressler mean when she writes “Abortion Rights Are Winning Legal Battles, But Losing The Larger War”? If you have a few minutes, read her essay.  If you don’t, here’s the long and the short of it.

prolifeimage104(1) Even when they are able to convince a judge to overturn one pro-life law, another law (or part of the same law) often is upheld. There are many examples (which we have written about at length at NRL News Today) but Culp-Ressler cites an example in Arkansas. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright gutted one part of an Arkansas law but “left in place another provision requiring a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is present.” Which gets Culp-Ressler off on a discussion of why it is so hard to defeat ultrasound laws.

(2) Although meaningless, “emotionally manipulative,” etc., etc. under the 1992 Casey decision states have a wider berth to pass laws so long as they do not constitute an “undue burden.” Try as pro-abortion lawyers (and writers like Culp-Ressler) might, an ultrasound law is a perfect example of  commonsense law which enhances—not diminishes informed consent. Pro-abortionists loathe any law that provides any information to a woman in a crisis situation. Why, if supposedly only a small percentage change their minds? Pro-abortionists can’t stand losing even one baby to life.

(3) As we reported last week, the state of North Dakota and the state’s lone abortion clinic reached an agreement to end a lawsuit brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) on behalf of Red River Women’s Clinic. The law, SB 2305, required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Red River Women’s Clinic accomplished just that. So what’s the problem? For one, the admitting privileges “aren’t a reasonable requirement, even though North Dakota’s clinic did end up being able to get them,” according to Culp-Ressler. “This particular anti-choice tactic relies on construing this policy as a common-sense method to protect women’s health and ensure clinic safety. Although being granted admitting privileges is a short-term victory for Red River Women’s Clinic, it’s a long-term win for abortion opponents, who now have more ammunition to claim that every abortion clinic across the country should be able to meet this often impossible standard” (emphasis mine)

And finally

(4) Culp-Ressler–and pro-abortionists in general–chortle when a law is passed that they say is obviously unconstitutional and dismiss us as “extremists” when a judge shoots it down. Then when judges uphold laws like ultrasound requirements or laws that limit the free-wheeling way chemical abortions are done (via webcams), they bemoan that Casey is “allowing them to slowly chip away at abortion access without the need to overturn Roe altogether.”

An interesting read and proves yet again that what pro-abortionists most fear is National Right to Life’s legislative strategy.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.