judges-gavelIt looks like the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Jackson, MS will keep their doors open at least a little while longer.  I wrote yesterday about the potential for Mississippi being an abortion-free state on Monday as the clinic, Mississippi’s only abortion provider, faced closure due to a new state law to go into effect this month.  The new law states that abortion practitioners had to be certified OB/GYNs with local hospital privileges. Today U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan placed a temporary restraining order on the state law until a hearing can take place on July 11th.

In his decision Jordan wrote, “Plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the Act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.”

Who cares about their motivations?  How is that germane to the constitutionality of the law?  If they meet the standard they can still provide abortions.  Regarding evidence does Judge Jordan believe women are safer without certified OB/GYNs?  I’m continually amazed by pro-abortion advocates who decry the potential for back alley abortions if abortion were outlawed are also the same ones who decry any type of standard being expected.  In Iowa they’ve gone so far to say a doctor doesn’t even need to be present for an abortion because a pill is given.  Even though she’ll miscarry at home, alone with a great possibility for problems to occur.  It’s asinine.  Having a requirement for certified OB/GYNs with local hospital privileges for chemical and surgical abortions is onerous?  It’s something they already should have been doing!  If they truly cared about the women they served that is.

Perhaps the legislators knew that this law would work because they know that abortion providers care more about the money they make than the safety of their clients.

The Jackson Free Press reports:

The lawsuit filed Wednesday —which claims the law clearly threatens the health of women and deprives them of their constitutionally-protected right to decide when and whether to have children—requested both a temporary restraining order to block the DOH’s immediate enforcement of the new restrictions as well as further relief to block the new law completely on the ground that it has the unconstitutional purpose of banning abortion in Mississippi.

I find it laughable that they file a lawsuit claiming the health of a women are hindered because they refuse to meet a safety standard.  Does anybody else see the irony in this?  Also I’d like to know how is it a constitutional right for a woman not to have to drive to get an abortion?  Also there is nothing in the law that state a new clinic can’t open up provided they meet the criteria.  Again, their concern isn’t about the health of women, it’s about the money they stand to lose if their clinic closes because they can’t provide something as basic as actual qualified OB/GYNs to perform their abortions.

Here’s a copy of his order below:

Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Mississippi

You May Also Like

Bumper Stickers

Last night when I was driving to Polk County Youth Services to…

Newspaper Editors Can’t Exercise Free Speech?

Bob Eschliman is the editor of the Newton Daily News.  He is…

Looking Backward: Potential, but Utopia?

The Libertarian movement, as evidenced by supporters of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential…

Nationalism or Fascism? The Rise of Europe’s New Right

“Is the rise of nationalism in Europe foreshadowing a return of fascism? John Gustavsson makes a case for nationalism and explains why this is not the case.