abortion
judge rejects texas stricture on abortions
One of the most divisive topics in modern-day American politics is the issue of abortion. Although legalized nationwide by the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, protests fueled by indignation have occurred ever since. Nowadays, the left-wing of our government is uniformly pro-choice, while the right-wing definitively adopts the pro-life philosophy. Recently, pro-life advocates have decided that if they can't overturn the 1973 legalization, they will make it increasingly harder for women to access abortion clinics--institutions whose purpose is to provide and conduct safe and affordable procedures to women who choose to terminate their pregnancy for their own, personal reasons. As abortion clinics across the nation are being forced to close their doors, the pro-choice movement is facing heightened opposition. However, a federal judge in Austin, Texas is preventing the closure of many abortion clinics in his state; Judge Lee Yeakel, serving in the United States District Court in Austin, rejected a strict rule that would have forced the closure of more than half of the state's remaining abortion clinics. The rule would have required all abortion clinics to meet the "building, equipment, and staffing standards of hospital-style surgery centers," in order to remain in operation. Judge Yeakel viewed the order as presenting "unjustified obstacles" to women's access to abortions; furthermore, if enacted the mandate provides no significant medical benefits to the women it is affecting.
The attempt to close the abortion clinics statewide is deemed unconstitutional due to the fact that it "imposes an undue burden on the right of women...to...a pre-viability abortion." While abortion-rights advocates are delighted by the ruling, Texas officials immediately pledged to appeal the decision. A spokeswoman for the office of the Texas attorney general stated that " the state disagrees with the court's ruling" and will take the conflict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman's Health, says that "requiring every abortion clinic to [transform] into a surgical center is excessive," and poor medical judgment. Not alone is his legal interpretations, Judge Yeakel's decision followed a series of legal victories for pro-choice proponents across the South. Federal courts have shot down measures that would closed the only abortion clinic in Mississippi and three of the five clinics in Alabama. The decisions shed light on the still very controversial and politically-charged environment that surrounds abortion, in the face of restrictions promoted by Republican lawmakers.
More than a dozen of Texas' remaining abortion clinics would have been forced to close because they wouldn't have been able to afford renovations or open new facilities, that would meet the newly required standards. Some of the standards included a certain hallway width, ceiling height, advanced ventilation equipment, and went so far as to include certain parking spaces. Texas, the second-largest state in the country would have been left with only seven abortion clinics, will all being located in major cities like Houston and Dallas. Women living in rural areas, like the Rio Grande Valley, would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest abortion clinic, located in San Antonio. Last year, Judge Yeakel ruled against a previous provision to Texas' abortion law. The provision was a requirement that doctors performing the procedures have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. The Fifth Circuit reversed Yeakel's decision and the provision went into effect; according to the Fifth Circuit, Yeakel's decision was reversed because, due to the fact that women were still within driving distance of the clinics, the provision would not cause an "undue burden." However, due to this "admitting-privileges provision," the number of operating abortion clinics in the state dropped from 41 to 19.
Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, the new Republican candidate for the governor's seat, defends the law because if the law had been enacted to it's full effect, 86% of women living in Texas (of reproductive age) would live within 150 miles of a clinic--this distance apparently poses no apparent unconstitutional burden. Opposition to the abortion law has come from the Texas medical community as four clinic operators and doctors have sued the state; they claimed that sections of the abortion law prevented females in the Hispanic communities from accessing safe procedures--causing some to induce abortions using black-market drugs.
Republican lawmakers' claims that the law is purposed to "protect patients" are viewed by opponents as a "thinly disguised effort to reduce access to abortions." Opponents believe the proposed Texas rule to be the newest part of the nationwide campaign of anti-abortion groups to dictate stiffer regulations on clinics. More than two dozen states, including Pennsylvania and Virginia, have imposed surgery-center standards. The combination of stringent standards, an "inflexible deadline," and no waivers or exceptions for existing facilities, would have a devastating effect upon Texas abortion clinics statewide. Judge Yeakel also addressed an argument made by the right-wing (if abortion clinics were closed): "women in El Paso would not [even] need to go to San Antonio because there [is] an abortion clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico," that is of relatively close proximity. Yeakel disagreed and voiced the opinion that if Texan women left the state for the abortion, it would undercut and refute the law's purpose, by sending women to clinics that would not have to abide by the Republican-promoted regulations and standards.
In my opinion, I believe that the law is in fact, a petty effort to limit women's access to abortions, on the part of conservative Republicans. These lawmakers are letting their own personal views cloud the fact that if these women cannot access safe and healthy procedures, they could end up harming themselves and their unborn fetuses by way of drugs or other illegal methods. Morality of abortion put aside, I do not believe it is ethical to tell a woman what she can and cannot concerning her life and her body. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that women have access to abortion clinics in cities that are close to their residential areas, and that states like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi begin to think of the welfare of their state--not just the well-to-do Republicans who are still trying to overturn an action that was legalized 41 years ago.
The attempt to close the abortion clinics statewide is deemed unconstitutional due to the fact that it "imposes an undue burden on the right of women...to...a pre-viability abortion." While abortion-rights advocates are delighted by the ruling, Texas officials immediately pledged to appeal the decision. A spokeswoman for the office of the Texas attorney general stated that " the state disagrees with the court's ruling" and will take the conflict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman's Health, says that "requiring every abortion clinic to [transform] into a surgical center is excessive," and poor medical judgment. Not alone is his legal interpretations, Judge Yeakel's decision followed a series of legal victories for pro-choice proponents across the South. Federal courts have shot down measures that would closed the only abortion clinic in Mississippi and three of the five clinics in Alabama. The decisions shed light on the still very controversial and politically-charged environment that surrounds abortion, in the face of restrictions promoted by Republican lawmakers.
More than a dozen of Texas' remaining abortion clinics would have been forced to close because they wouldn't have been able to afford renovations or open new facilities, that would meet the newly required standards. Some of the standards included a certain hallway width, ceiling height, advanced ventilation equipment, and went so far as to include certain parking spaces. Texas, the second-largest state in the country would have been left with only seven abortion clinics, will all being located in major cities like Houston and Dallas. Women living in rural areas, like the Rio Grande Valley, would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest abortion clinic, located in San Antonio. Last year, Judge Yeakel ruled against a previous provision to Texas' abortion law. The provision was a requirement that doctors performing the procedures have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. The Fifth Circuit reversed Yeakel's decision and the provision went into effect; according to the Fifth Circuit, Yeakel's decision was reversed because, due to the fact that women were still within driving distance of the clinics, the provision would not cause an "undue burden." However, due to this "admitting-privileges provision," the number of operating abortion clinics in the state dropped from 41 to 19.
Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, the new Republican candidate for the governor's seat, defends the law because if the law had been enacted to it's full effect, 86% of women living in Texas (of reproductive age) would live within 150 miles of a clinic--this distance apparently poses no apparent unconstitutional burden. Opposition to the abortion law has come from the Texas medical community as four clinic operators and doctors have sued the state; they claimed that sections of the abortion law prevented females in the Hispanic communities from accessing safe procedures--causing some to induce abortions using black-market drugs.
Republican lawmakers' claims that the law is purposed to "protect patients" are viewed by opponents as a "thinly disguised effort to reduce access to abortions." Opponents believe the proposed Texas rule to be the newest part of the nationwide campaign of anti-abortion groups to dictate stiffer regulations on clinics. More than two dozen states, including Pennsylvania and Virginia, have imposed surgery-center standards. The combination of stringent standards, an "inflexible deadline," and no waivers or exceptions for existing facilities, would have a devastating effect upon Texas abortion clinics statewide. Judge Yeakel also addressed an argument made by the right-wing (if abortion clinics were closed): "women in El Paso would not [even] need to go to San Antonio because there [is] an abortion clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico," that is of relatively close proximity. Yeakel disagreed and voiced the opinion that if Texan women left the state for the abortion, it would undercut and refute the law's purpose, by sending women to clinics that would not have to abide by the Republican-promoted regulations and standards.
In my opinion, I believe that the law is in fact, a petty effort to limit women's access to abortions, on the part of conservative Republicans. These lawmakers are letting their own personal views cloud the fact that if these women cannot access safe and healthy procedures, they could end up harming themselves and their unborn fetuses by way of drugs or other illegal methods. Morality of abortion put aside, I do not believe it is ethical to tell a woman what she can and cannot concerning her life and her body. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that women have access to abortion clinics in cities that are close to their residential areas, and that states like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi begin to think of the welfare of their state--not just the well-to-do Republicans who are still trying to overturn an action that was legalized 41 years ago.