Share This Article with a Friend!


Judges Usurping The Powers Of We The People Strike Down Abortion Regulations


right to life

Louisiana's principled limited government constitutional conservative Governor Bobby Jindal and the duly elected state legislature in Louisiana are the latest representatives of We the People to discover that, according to some of today’s federal judges, the Constitution doesn’t really mean what its plain language says.
 
In Article I, Section I the Constitution clearly states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
 
The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
 
And the Tenth Amendment, the last Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
 
But somehow judges have found that they do indeed have legislative powers, especially when it comes to advancing the radical feminist agenda and other leftwing social causes.
 
U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles, a recent Obama appointee who sits in Baton Rouge, granted a temporary restraining order against state officials after three of Louisiana's five abortion-performing clinics sued, according to Governing magazine. (Click here for to Judge deGravelles' ruling hosted by nola.com)
 
The law in question, HB 388, was passed overwhelmingly this year by the Louisiana legislature and signed into law by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in June and was due to take effect September 1. It would require doctors who perform abortions to have patient admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice.
 
Only one doctor who performs abortions in Louisiana has hospital admitting privileges, according to Reuters.
 
Louisiana is among 11 states that have passed similar laws, with courts recently ruling unconstitutional such measures in Alabama and Mississippi. Key parts of a Texas law that would have shuttered most remaining clinics in that state were blocked by a federal judge on Friday.
 
Now here’s the key point; Judge deGravelles did not suspend the entire law, but rather told the plaintiffs that they would be able to continue their work without penalty while the matter was further examined in court and while the doctors pursued admitting privileges.
 
In other words, he substituted his arbitrary and capricious conclusion that 81 days was not enough time for the abortion doctors at Louisiana’s five abortion clinics to seek admitting privileges at hospitals for the well-considered judgment of the elected representatives of the people of Louisiana that it was enough time.
 
And that they could continue behavior that the legislature and governor had deemed contrary to the best interests of the people of Louisiana “without penalty” while he considered the case and the abortion doctors sought to comply with the law’s requirement that they have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics.
 
Laws requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges have been passed and then challenged around the country, with varying results. A three-member panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas' version of the law, while last week, a separate 5th Circuit panel blocked Mississippi's.
 
At the beginning of August a similar law that would have closed three of five abortion clinics in Alabama was deemed unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson. It turned out in that case that few of the doctors that provided abortions in Alabama actually lived in the state -- one lives in Nigeria, another in Chicago, another in Atlanta -- in part because of the hostility in Alabama toward abortion.
 
Again, Judge Thompson overruled the well-considered judgment of the legislature and governor of Alabama and concluded that a "climate of extreme hostility" toward abortion made it difficult for doctors to perform and for women to access the procedure in the state and thus the Alabama law was unconstitutional.
 
Similar laws are in effect in Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee, and Louisiana's was set to take effect September 1.
 
In an email to LifeNews, Benjamin Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, got it right when he said: “Since abortion was legalized in the United States, the abortion industry has virtually opposed every common-sense effort to raise medical standards at abortion facilities and give women more information about abortion and their options. They have done it again in fighting the implementation of Act 620 (HB 388). These abortion facilities want less oversight so they can sell more abortions.”
 
In the wake of the Dr. Kermit Gosnell murder trial in Pennsylvania, and the horrors that were allowed there through the intentional failure to exercise even a modicum of state oversight over Gosnell and his clinic, one would think that the common sense regulation that doctors who perform dangerous procedures such as abortion have hospital admitting privileges would be supported by anyone interested in “women’s health.”
 
But the abortion industry isn’t interested in “women’s health.” They want to sell more abortions. Unfortunately, the abortion industry has been aided and abetted in their efforts by federal judges who are willing to usurp the powers reserved in the Constitution to the States and We the People and legislate from the bench in a way that would never pass muster were it applied to any medical procedure other than abortion.

Share this