If the law deems some of our offspring not human-enough to have the right not to be killed, what’s the use of restrictions on the licensed killers?
From the San Antonio Express News, we learn about a new lawsuit filed by the State’s ” largest abortion provider.”
““The lawsuits (sic) challenges numerous requirements including only allowing doctors to perform abortions, rather than clinic staff. It also challenges licensing standards, 24-hour waiting periods and a requirement that an ultrasound be shown to the patient.””
I suppose “Whole Women’s Health” owner, Amy Miller may have a point. Perhaps the ruling against HB2 made whole new conditions for abortion laws. See the timeline of litigation on HB2, here.
Do we even need to license the killers in the first place? Why should only doctors wield a vacuum wand or curette or dispense abortifacients without an ultrasound?
The question is whether this case is unique and sweeping enough to move the Supreme Court to hear another Texas abortion case? And will the Court remain divided as it was on HB2, which was decided 5-3 in the absence of the late Justice Antonin Scalia?
Could this pressure Justices Anthony Kennedy (81 years old) or Stephen Bryer (80 yo in August) to put off retirement a while longer? And will Justice Ruth Ginsberg (85 yo) still be on the Court?
But we don’t have to question where the money to pay the abortionists’ lawyers. Unfortunately, the taxpayer’s of Texas are required to pay the lawyers that represented the plaintiffs $4.5 Million.
06/15/18 12;50 PM Edited to clean grammar, BBN
06/16/18 7:30 AM Edited formatting, BBN
WingRight 
Discussion
Comments are closed.