On November 4, the Oklahoma Supreme Court put two pieces of pro-life legislation on hold. The New York Times titles their piece “Oklahoma Supreme Court Blocks 2 Abortion Laws.” It is, however, possible for the laws to ultimately prevail, as the state’s high court is waiting for the lower courts to decide on the constitutionality of such laws.
The commonsense laws had to do with requiring abortionists present during the procedure to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, as well as the limiting of medication abortion to 7 weeks of pregnancy. Many groups in favor of abortion have lauded the ruling, while having a particular interpretation of the laws. For instance, Bustle celebrated the courts decision in “Blocking Two Extreme Laws.” And the crude and ever supportive of abortion outlet Jezebel mentioned “Particularly Ridiculous Abortion Laws.”
While reporting on the decision, The Huffington Post concluded their piece with a statement from Cecile Richards:
“We are relieved the court has stepped in to protect women’s access to safe, legal abortion in Oklahoma. A woman’s access to safe, legal abortion should not depend upon where she happens to live,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.
The irony of the statement is profound. It could more accurately be said that an unborn child’s right to life should not depend on where he or she happens to live. Further, while the court may be limiting abortion restrictions in Oklahoma, if only temporary, to make it more legal does not make it more safe. This is particularly the case when laws on admitting privileges and the regulation of medication abortions are in place to protect the health and safety of the mother. Then again, Planned Parenthood has hardly an abortion regulation it didn’t take issue with.
Planned Parenthood advertises medication abortion, or the abortion pill, in that women like the privacy, the control, or feel that the process is more natural. It is also stated (with no support to such a claim) that “[n]early all women who have used the abortion pill would recommend the method to a friend.” Medication abortion, or RU-486 is certainly not as simple or safe as Planned Parenthood touts.
The reality of the experiences of those undergoing medication abortion would say otherwise. Many women have shared horror stories, including former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson. National Right to Life News also features several stories of women who have gone through a medication abortion, including a pro-choice woman, and one who said she “…would not recommend this pill to my worst enemy…” Pro-life blogger Sarah Terzo also compiled a list of stories on her website, ClinicQuotes.com.
Not only do these women go through these abortions alone, but they oftentimes never see a doctor at all, as is the case with webcam or telemed abortions. The abortion business profits off a pregnant woman without even examining her, which would naturally have risks and complications. Yet Bustle bemoans the regulation of this method, in that it “essentially outlaws telemedicine abortion.”
Admitting privileges are also necessary and in place to protect women should complications arise during an abortion procedure. The seedy practice of abortion clinics and their staffers shows the need to have such laws.
Abortion is a procedure which is always unsafe for one party, in that it kills the unborn child. That is bad enough. Must it also endanger the health and safety of the mother?
One can hope that the lower courts in Oklahoma will ultimately rule such laws as constitutional. After all, such legislation certainly can be a legitimate interest for states to protect life of unborn children and their mothers.