New research from a pro-abortion group suggests at least 15 states could be allowed to increase protections for unborn babies and mothers if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of a Louisiana abortion clinic regulation.
Of course, the Guttmacher Institute used very different terms to describe the potential impact of the ruling, which is expected this summer. In its new study, published Monday, the pro-abortion research group identified states that could “profoundly” reduce access to abortion if allowed to enforce hospital admitting privileges laws, CBS News reports.
The 2014 Louisiana law at the center of the case requires abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges to treat patients with emergency complications. If allowed to take effect, it could close shoddy abortion facilities that are not prepared to help patients suffering from potentially life-threatening complications.
However, abortion activists suing in June Medical Services v. Russo claim the law is an “undue burden” on access to abortion because it could close so many abortion facilities.
The study identified seven states where abortion facilities could close if the high court upholds the law: Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. All of the states have hospital admitting privileges laws, but none are being enforced because of court rulings.
According to Guttmacher, nine more states are “at risk” of adopting admitting privileges laws because their state legislatures and governors are pro-life. They are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia.
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!
In other words, abortion activists are worried that abortion facilities could be forced to close if they cannot or will not meet basic health and safety standards that protect their patients.
Here’s more from CBS News:
… admitting privilege laws have historically been tied to clinic closures. When an admitting privilege law in Texas was in effect from November 2013 to June 2016, the number of clinics in the state nearly halved, dropping to 22 from 41. Though the Supreme Court overturned the law in 2016 with its ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the number of facilities has not rebounded. The law at the center of June Medical Services v. Russo is nearly identical.
In its report, Guttmacher identified similar impacts in Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama when admitting privilege laws were temporarily allowed to go into effect.
If the high court sides with Louisiana, all three of the states’s clinics that provide abortion are expected to close.
But both the researchers and CBS News failed to recognize what so many closures may say about the health and safety conditions inside U.S. abortion facilities.
Abortion activists claim abortions are very safe, yet state health inspections repeatedly have found that abortion facilities fail to report complications to their state health departments.
Evidence suggests that there are major safety concerns at Louisiana abortion facilities, too. In November, the Louisiana Department of Justice announced suspicions about alleged criminal activity that may have happened at the Hope Medical Group. It accused the abortion facility of hiding evidence of criminal and professional misconduct from the U.S. Supreme Court. The state asked the Fifth Circuit to unseal documents in the closely-watched case.
A few weeks later, a Fifth Circuit ruling suggested one abortionist in the state may be performing abortions that lead to second-trimester babies being born alive.
But Guttmacher researcher Elizabeth Nash claimed there is just one motive behind the hospital admitting privileges laws: “to close abortion clinics.”
Closing abortion clinics is a goal of pro-life advocates. It is no secret, but the ultimate reason for that goal is safety: safety for the mother and safety for her unborn child.