Abortionists often play the persecuted saint before the public eye, portraying themselves as dedicated servants to women in the face of adversities. And the mainstream media helps them keep up the façade.
But law professor Adam J. Macleod at Faulkner University said most people do not realize that abortion practitioners enjoy legal “immunities and powers that no other health-care professionals possess,” thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a column at National Review, Macleod said these special privileges are not helping women, and it’s time for the Supreme Court to hold abortionists accountable.
Whatever advantages women may have gained from Roe and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] are more than offset by the power those decisions conferred on the abortion industry. The Court’s abortion precedents immunize abortionists from basic legal accountability such as general medical regulations, professional oversight, common-law protections for bodily integrity, and other laws that would protect women and children from harm and which apply to all other medical professionals. In stages of pregnancy before the unborn child can survive outside the womb, the abortion industry’s special immunities are absolute, or nearly so.
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
For example, when the Supreme Court struck down pro-life laws across the country, it did not protect women from prosecution, it protected abortionists, he said. Women were not punished for abortions pre–Roe, and pro-life laws passed after Roe do not punish women either. Instead, these laws would punish abortionists who kill unborn babies and make money doing it.
The Supreme Court has given the billion-dollar abortion industry special privileges in other ways, too. Unlike any other health care professional, abortionists are allowed to sue to challenge a law on behalf of their patients, Macleod said.
This allows “powerful men and corporations to speak for women, despite their obvious personal and financial stake in a particular outcome,” he continued. “These parties often obtain judgments exempting them from laws that protect the health of women and children …”
For example, in the recent case June Medical v. Russo, the Supreme Court allowed the abortion industry to fight against a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to meet a basic health standard for medical professionals: hospital admitting privileges. This requirement helps ensure that women suffering from life-threatening complications will receive continued and immediate care from the abortion facility to the hospital.
But the Supreme Court sided with the abortion industry, not women, in the case, and struck down the law.
The abortion industry fights against other common-sense laws, too, including state inspections of abortion facilities and other health and safety measures, parental consent for minors and informed consent requirements.
If any other industry was allowed to challenge laws to hold it accountable for protecting and informing the people it serves – and did it in the name of protecting those very same people, it would be condemned and ridiculed, and rightfully so.
But this is exactly what the abortion industry does and has gotten away with doing for decades.
Macleod said it’s time for the high court to make the abortion industry answer for itself and stop using women as a cover.
“If they deserve such special treatment, they should justify it on their own behalf,” he concluded. “The Court should stop allowing them to hide behind their patients.”