3,279 Women Who Had Abortions All Told a Court The Same Horrible Thing About Their Experience

State   |   Josh Shepherd   |   Jan 8, 2015   |   2:42PM   |   New Orleans, LA

In the latest challenge to Texas’ so-called “pro-life law of the century” (passed as H.B. 2), yesterday a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey.

Abortion providers, including Whole Woman’s Health Clinic in McAllen, TX, sued the State of Texas to keep key provisions of H.B. 2 from being enforced. The law passed the Texas House by a bipartisan majority of 96-49 and was signed into law on July 18, 2013.

“States are free to regulate the practice of medicine for the safety of patients,” states Allan Parker, an attorney and pro-family legal advocate present in the courtroom during the hour-long hearing. As President of The Justice Foundation, Parker and his legal team filed a brief in support of the State of Texas.

U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
This week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a challenge to H.B. 2 (Photo: Goetz / Flickr)

“Texas now has a pro-life legislature,” he continues. “Surely the will of the people in this area should be the law. Most people want to protect human life and protect women.”

The passage of H.B. 2 in Texas is regarded as a landmark event in the pro-life movement, spurring other states to enact similar common sense protections for women and pre-born babies.

The Justice Foundation’s legal brief documents testimonies of 3,279 post-abortive women and the negative effects of abortion on their lives. “We represent women who have suffered injury after having an abortion,” Parker says. “Years later, many still deal with psychological injuries and emotional scars: suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety, and nightmares.”

Medical research studies on health risks faced by post-abortive women have multiplied in recent years. “Texans, and in fact all Americans, need to be involved in protecting women’s health and protecting the lives of children,” stresses Parker.

Mother and Newborn
“People want to protect human life and protect women” – Allan Parker (Photo: J. Fader / Flickr)

Oral arguments in this court case centered on whether the Texas State Legislature enacting two major provisions of H.B. 2 was constitutional: requiring abortion centers to have the same safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), and mandating that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

The New York Times reports that the three-judge panel “also criticized a lower court for voiding the entire surgery-center law, rather than specifying which parts were justified and which were not.”

Parker notes that the line of questioning on physician admitting privileges seemed to reveal the judges’ support of this requirement. “Directing these doctors to have hospital admitting privileges does not bother true medical professionals at all,” Parker says. “That’s just part of good medical practice.”

Jonathan Mitchell, Solicitor General of Texas who argued on the state’s behalf, faced more difficult questions around raising abortion centers’ health and safety standards up to ASC requirements. “There is some cost involved to widen hallways and increase sanitary conditions in a clinic,” Parker acknowledges. “At least one of the judges was not convinced on the need for this type of requirement.”


After interviewing more than 3,000 post-abortive women for The Justice Foundation’s court brief, Parker challenges this reticence. “In a botched abortion, a woman ends up needing to quickly go to an emergency room — which is why these abortion centers need doorways and hallways large enough for a gurney. The woman also needs continuity of care once in the hospital, rather than an abortionist who is nowhere to be found.”

In line with many court observers, Parker believes the three-judge panel will uphold H.B. 2. “The judges want to support the will of the people through their elected legislature if they can,” says Parker. “The state presented a lot of compelling evidence that would allow the judges to do that.”

“To paraphrase, the solicitor general said in closing, When there is conflicting medical evidence, the abortionists don’t get the final say: the people’s representatives should be able to make the laws,” Parker summarizes. “Judges should desire to respect the will of the legislature. Even if some small parts of the law are restricted, there is every likelihood that the previous broad ruling will be overturned.”

This court case is the latest episode in a nearly two-year struggle, as Texas legislators have prioritized saving defenseless pre-born lives. A decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected within a matter of months.

LifeNews Note: Josh M. Shepherd has served in communications/marketing roles for the past 10 years at Focus on the Family and The Heritage Foundation. Reprinted with permission from Bound4LIFE.