Davis had donned her pink shoes. She talked for hours. The Texas Senate voted and passed the bill. But Lt. Governor David Dewhurst was hampered by a mob of activists as he attempted to enroll the bill, on time, after its passage.
Davis didn't pull any such stunts during the second special. She voted against the bill, which passed.
Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and others joined in a suit against Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, and Davis' popular opponent for the 2014 Texas Gubernatorial Election.
The US District Court in Austin, Texas stated they would rule on the suit before its provisions went into effect on October 29th. Late in the afternoon of the 28th, the judge presented the ruling, fully anticipating an appeal. The case is now anticipated to see its arguments before the US 5th District Court of Appeals and may end up before the US Supreme Court.
The ruling struck down two provisions of the abortion reform bills.
First, it struck down some of the provisions regarding pharmaceutical abortions. These are abortions performed using poisons that cause a woman's body to reject the child growing within her, basically causing a drug-induced miscarriage. The law required these drugs to be distributed only through prescription and used under the supervision of a licensed physician. The court ruled that this restricts a woman's freedom of choice. It disregarded quality of life infringements these drugs impose upon a child that has developed past the age where the drugs effectively induce such a miscarriage. The drugs are known to cause extreme birth defects and developmental impairments on those children.
Next, the court struck down the provision that a doctor performing an abortion have an admission agreement or contract with a nearby hospital in case of a medical emergency.
The court did not strike down the reform that limits elective abortions to within 20 weeks of gestation.
Governor Rick Perry issued the following statement regarding the court's decision:
"Today's decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren't exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently. We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly-elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans."
Current Texas Agriculture Commissioner and Candidate for Lt. Governor had this to say about the court's ruling:
Post by Todd Staples.
"I am deeply disappointed with the ruling today. We must stop Wendy Davis and her liberal allies like Battleground Texas from pushing their pro-abortion agenda in Texas."
The irony is that the provisions the court struck down are still laws that apply to other ambulatory surgical procedures and childbirth.
If a patient goes to an oral surgeon to have teeth extracted, such as wisdom teeth, the dentist is required to have an admissions contract with a hospital. See Texas Administrative Code Title 25 Part I Chapter 135 Sub-chapter A, RULE §135.4, paragraph 11. Sub-paragraph (B) further specifies the admissions contract requirements. This applies whether the patient is having wisdom teeth pulled, getting a nose-job, having a broken bone set, or having a boil lanced. Those are all ambulatory surgical procedures.
And abortion is a form of elective surgery. Should the patient not be afforded the same life-saving measures? Some may see this as a matter of common sense and answer "yes". Others, such as Wendy Davis, would rather the patients be subjected to conditions like those Dr. Kermit Gosnel subjected his patients to.
Birthing centers, including those run by Licensed Midwives, must also have admissions privileges and contracts in case of emergencies. Chapter 137, Sub-chapter D, RULE §137.36 paragraph 1 specifies:
The physical and environmental requirements for a center are as follows.
(1) The center shall be located within a recommended 20 minutes but with a required maximum of 30 minutes normal driving time of a referral hospital. The department may approve the location of a center that is located a further distance away if the department finds that the health and safety of the clients of the center will not be adversely affected.
Here, the law protects both patients, mother and child. This begs the question on why abortive mothers should not be afforded the same protections.
These are provisions that Planned Parenthood opposes. An organization that propagates its alleged role as a means to provide health and fertility care for women appears to oppose providing emergency medical care for women.
The ACLU stands with them, as does Candidate for Governor of Texas, Wendy Davis.
Wendy Davis also stands for expanding the federal role in healthcare in Texas. She wants the federal government to expand its authority over the lives and decisions of private individual citizens. Her claims appear to state that Wendy believes she knows better what is best for each of the 25.6 million individual Texans than they or their doctors do.
She supports taxpayers paying for the elective surgeries on others. That is taxation without representation.
With the clunk-out of the Obamacare exchanges proving more and more troublesome each day, Wendy Davis supports increasing its impositions upon Texas citizens. Nation-wide, as many as 3 million people may be losing their insurance policies because of provisions within the [un]Affordable Care[less] Act. Each day, more people are coming forward, outraged that they must change plans and doctors because of the law. More and more doctors are choosing to refuse medicare and medicaid because of the law.
Even devout supporters of the ACA, such as Ronald Reagan's daughter are experiencing shock over what the law really means. Even Obamacare activist and former congressional staffer Sue Klinkhamer is appalled.
Wendy Davis wants more of it in Texas. She wants Kermit Gosnel clones to run abortion facilities in Texas without requiring them to have admissions contracts at hospitals. She wants taxpayers to be burdened with the bills for all of the above.
Yet, Planned Parenthood sued Greg Abbott over provisions to provide emergency life-saving access and admissions capabilities being required under law.
Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave, scratching his head, and wondering if Common Sense has died.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.