- Fighting requirements that abortionists obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital
- Opposing proper medical standards at abortion facilities, like having wider hallways in case a patient needs to be taken to the hospital on a gurney
- Fighting for the right to abort babies on the basis of race, gender, or disability (yes, they actually think it's okay to kill a human fetus--a living, developing human being--because of his or her race, gender, or disability)
- Defending brutal late-term abortions
Two abortion-related cases have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both originate in Oklahoma. The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged both a law restricting non-surgical abortions and one requiring an ultrasound before a woman has an abortion. The Oklahoma state supreme court has permanently blocked both of these laws.
Texas has been gaining a lot of attention for the 20-week abortion ban that it just passed (20 weeks is the abortion cut off in Alabama, by the way). Abortion activists, in their unrelenting defense of late-term abortion on pain-capable unborn babies, planned to throw tampons, feces, and bricks at pro-life legislators. Police caught them, but the pro-abortion lack of civility continued; hell broke loose during the week before the Texas legislature voted to ban late-term abortions and hold abortion facilities to higher medical standards.
Abortion activists are up in arms, using a lot of their typical buzzwords like "access," "women," "choice," "reproductive rights," "comprehensive sex education," and "justice" (side note: pro-abort logic says that none of these words, particularly "justice," apply to unborn babies. Ever!). One of their main concerns is that the bill could close 37 abortion facilities in Texas. The reality of it is that the bill will close abortion facilities if they can't comply with the new common-sense law. And if they can't meet proper medical standards, should these abortion businesses even be open?
Najda Wolfe at the Charlotte Lozier Institute put it well:
"If the purpose of legalizing abortion was to make it safer by regulation, what’s the problem? These standards haven’t been plucked from thin air; they are required for other facilities providing outpatient surgery. If it’s a procedure like any other, it’s not logical that it isn’t held to the same standards. Why is abortion so special, and what about being special means women’s reproductive health should be held to a lower standard of patient care? Aren’t women worth it?
Clinics will have to adjust their services or adjust their clinics; they would have over a year to do so, and those that are part of major affiliates may have the resources anyway. If it’s really about providing quality healthcare to women, isn’t it worth the investment? I wouldn’t be particularly happy to visit a surgery that wasn’t fully equipped just because most people who use it don’t need special care. In health services, we want to discourage risk-taking. Abortion shouldn’t get a pass just because some people are passionate about its politics.
So what exactly was Wendy standing for? Whatever her intentions, Wendy Davis wasn’t standing for women or women’s health, because women’s health should be taken as seriously as any other medical area. She wasn’t standing for Texas voters, who mostly agree with the time restrictions and elected majorities that would pass the bill. She wasn’t preserving vast numbers of abortions now being performed after 20 weeks. This wasn’t one woman against “the man”; it was an industry against the will of the people. To stand with Wendy Davis is to stand with the clinics, to stand against surgical abortion being taken as seriously as other surgical procedures, and to stand against women’s reproductive health being treated equally well as other areas of health."