Pro-Abortion Study Laments People Have to Drive Further in Texas to Kill Their Babies in Abortions

National   |   Micaiah Bilger   |   Mar 18, 2016   |   5:45PM   |   Washington, DC

America is big. Really big. Many Americans underestimate how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. Especially abortion advocates.

Lately, abortion advocates have been trying various tactics to attack the Texas law responsible for closing abortion clinics that could not or would not meet basic health and safety regulations. One of their arguments against the law is that women will have to travel further to have abortions, resulting in more expenses and frustrations.

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard abortion activists’ challenge to the Texas law (House Bill 2) in the potential landmark case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The law is arguably responsible for saving the lives of tens of thousands of unborn babies by closing abortion clinics that are unable to protect women’s health. The law requires that abortion clinics meet the kinds of medical facility regulations and hospital admitting requirements that other outpatient surgical facilities meet.

Sarah Kliff, a journalist who hasn’t been shy about showing her pro-abortion bias, tweeted about a new study attacking the law on Friday:

The study that Kliff referenced, published in the American Journal of Public Health, reports, “For women in our study whose nearest abortion clinic closed after HB2, the average distance to the nearest abortion provider increased 4-fold, and for 44% of this group, the new distance exceeded 50 miles.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from

The researchers said these women also had out-of-pocket expenses greater than $100, had a frustrated demand for medication abortions and reported that it was somewhat or very hard to get to the abortion clinic.

They concluded, “ Clinic closures after House Bill 2 resulted in significant burdens for women able to obtain care.” The researchers were from the University of California San Francisco, the University of Alabama Birmingham, the University of Texas at Autin and Ibis Reproductive Health.

While 50 miles is not a short distance, it isn’t necessarily all that long, either. Abortion activists fail to take into account how big America is and how many Americans have to travel long distances, especially in the Mid- and South-West regions, to work, health care facilities, stores, etc.

They also conveniently ignore that the new law isn’t stopping new abortion clinics from opening or the old ones from updating to meet the new medical standards. Yes, this may cost some money, but isn’t the health and safety of women worth it? It isn’t to the Texas abortion chain that’s challenging the law in court, or the numerous others that have closed. Apparently, saving a few bucks is more important than providing women with the high quality health care that they deserve.

In all seriousness, women’s health is vitally important and creating obstacles to accessing necessary health care is troublesome. But aborting an unborn child is not just another medical procedure, and even abortion activists don’t treat it that way. An abortion isn’t like having a tooth pulled or tonsils removed. It’s not necessary for women to succeed in life.

The point is, distance doesn’t matter. Even if women had to travel 500 miles to an abortion clinic, it would not change the fact that abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent unborn child’s life.