Wisconsin’s Abortion Law Ruled Unconstitutional. Judge Exposes Pro-Life Plot In Ruling

Today the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent shock waves throughout the abortion debate, ruling Wisconsin’s abortion law unconstitutional.

Wisconsin’s abortion law, known as the TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law, required abortion providers to gain admitting privileges at hospitals within a certain radius. The Guttmacher Institute says that Wisconsin is one of 11 states that requires similar admitting privileges. The courts have blocked similar abortion laws in six of those states.

Supporters of the TRAP law say that the law guarantees “continuity of care” in case a woman experiences complications during her abortion. However, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that less than one-half of one percent of all abortions have major complications.

The court ruled 2-to-1 against the Trap law, at a time when similar laws are facing constitutional challenges. Over a week ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Texas law titled “HB 2.” The Texas law decreased the number of abortion clinics in the state from 41 to 18. Many say the ruling in this case, which is due next year, will be one of the most important rulings since Roe v. Wade.

The University of Texas at Austin conducted a study and found between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women performed self-induced abortion over the past 5 years. The study cites the availability of abortion services and drugs as being the prime factor in their decision to self-induce.

Writing for the 7th Circuit majority, Judge Richard Posner stated that the law qualifies as an “undue burden.” The judge also says that the medical necessity for the admitting privileges condition is “nonexistent.” The judge also issues some stern words to pro-lifers:

“Opponents of abortion reveal their true objectives when they procure legislation limited to a medical procedure— abortion—that rarely produces a medical emergency.”

Posner was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and is known as a judicial firebrand for his strongly worded legal arguments. And Posner did not disappoint in this case:

“A great many Americans, including a number of judges, legislators, governors, and civil servants, are passionately opposed to abortion—as they are entitled to be. But persons who have a sophisticated understanding of the law and of the Supreme Court know that convincing the Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is a steep uphill fight, and so some of them proceed indirectly, seeking to discourage abortions by making it more difficult for women to obtain them. They may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet as in this case the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion. This is true of the Texas requirement, upheld by the Fifth Circuit in the Whole Woman’s case now before the Supreme Court, that abortion clinics meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers—a requirement that if upheld will permit only 8 of Texas’s abortion clinics to remain open, out of more than 40 that existed when the law was passed.”


Featured image by flickr.com, available under a Creative Commons license.