Most press just call it ‘the controversial abortion law’. Why is it controversial?

Because most big media are complicit with the abortion industry and therefore against any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. But the Texas law bans abortions after 20 weeks, which means killing five month old babies in the womb. We should at least be able to agree on that.

But instead, we’ve had high drama and intense, pitched battles over the legal ‘right’ to kill five month old babies. ‘Choice’ and ‘termination of pregnancy’  and ‘a woman’s right to an abortion’ have dominated news stories, still. After the Kermit Gosnell trial, most or many of us thought we wouldn’t go back there again, to that dark place of disguising the horrible truth of what the abortion logic really is.

So the Texas battle reached the Supreme Court and they ruled this week. Here’s how it played in the press that should have grown more mature in its reporting by now.

CBS News.

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to continue enforcing abortion restrictions that opponents say have led more than a third of the state’s clinics to stop providing abortions.

What kind of lead is that? Tendentious.

The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Which…what?…sounds at the very least logical. Especially given the number of times and cases across the country when an ambulance has had to pull up to an abortion clinic to rush a woman off for critical life-saving medical treatment after a botched abortion. So…

The court’s conservative majority refused the plea of Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics to overturn a preliminary federal appeals court ruling that allowed the provision to take effect.

Note that these stories never report how ‘the court’s liberal majority’ ruled on other opinions that meet media approval.

NBC News reported this:

Part of the new state abortion law requires doctors who perform the procedures to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics.

Women’s groups and doctors had challenged the law, and a federal court in Texas last month blocked enforcement of that provision the night before it was to take effect. The judge said the law had no medical purpose.

But just three days later, on Oct. 31, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, allowing the law to take effect. It said the law was an additional check on a doctor’s qualifications.

Which can only be good for the women they’re treating, right?

Women’s groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put the ban on enforcement back in place.

Wait. Which “women’s groups”? That’s vague and unspecific. And left so in the article, though it’s widely known that Planned Parenthood and other abortion backers were the groups fighting this law. Here’s part of what they claim:

“Over one third of the facilities providing abortions in Texas have been forced to stop providing that care and others have been forced to drastically reduce the number of patients to whom they are able to provide care. Already, appointments are being canceled and women seeking abortions are being turned away,” they said.

Notice that the word “care” is used twice in that paragraph. Define “care.” How is unregulated abortion, with no backup care in nearby hospitals by treating doctors, considered “care”?

CNN reported this:

The original lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Austin by Planned Parenthood on behalf of more than a dozen women’s health care providers across Texas, alleged the state’s new abortion law violates the constitutional rights of women and puts unreasonable demands on doctors who perform abortions.

It is not an “unreasonable demand” that those doctors have privileges at local hospitals. In fact, it should be required for any and all “women’s health care providers”, to be truthful.

The bill originally failed to gain approval because of a Democratic filibuster led by state Sen. Wendy Davis…

Davis, who is running for governor, blasted Tuesday’s decision.

“Clinics will close and women’s health will be hurt because of this law. This is an abuse of power by politicians in Austin. I trust women to make their own decisions and will continue to work to make sure that women and mothers are safe and have access to adequate health care,” she said in a statement.

Wait. Women’s health will be hurt because the law requires women’s doctors to have admitting privileges in local hospitals? A prominent abortion activist promises to make sure “mothers are safe and have access to adequate health care”, while opposing the very law that ensures that?

The New York Times.

“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the court of appeals should have granted a stay in this case,” Justice Scalia wrote. “But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards — which do not include a special ‘status quo’ standard for laws affecting abortion.”…

State officials told the court that the law, which requires that doctors have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they perform abortions, protects public health by “fostering a woman’s ability to seek consultation and treatment for complications directly from her physician.”

The officials added that the impact of the law was modest, saying that more than 90 percent of women seeking abortions in the state will still live within 100 miles of an abortion clinic….

At bottom, the two sides in Tuesday’s ruling differed about what it means to maintain the status quo while a case proceeds through the courts. Justice Scalia said that the status quo is upheld and federalism principles are vindicated when validly enacted state laws are allowed to stand while their constitutionality is definitively resolved.

I would arrange the priority of reporting in this Fox News story in reverse order.


The law also bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and beginning in October 2014 requires doctors to perform all abortions in surgical facilities.

Sounds good and reasonable.

During the trial, officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified that they’ve tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision.

Many hospitals with religious affiliations will not allow abortion doctors to work there, while others fear protests if they provide privileges.

Many have requirements that doctors live within a certain radius of the facility, or perform a minimum number of surgeries a year that must be performed in a hospital.

This is all reasonable. Safety and regulation should be foremost in everyone’s mind.

A spokeswoman for the Texas Attorney General’s Office said Tuesday said the office is “pleased” with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“These are commonsense – and perfectly constitutional – regulations that further the state’s interest in protecting the health and safety of Texas women,” Lauren Bean said.

Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry also said he was happy with the court’s decision.

“This is good news both for the unborn and for the women of Texas, who are now better protected from shoddy abortion providers operating in dangerous conditions,” Perry said.

Like Kermit Gosnell, to remind of something I thought we wouldn’t soon, if ever, forget.

Sheila Liaugminas

Sheila Liaugminas is an Emmy award-winning Chicago-based journalist in print and broadcast media. Her writing and broadcasting covers matters of faith, culture, politics and the media....