A federal appeals court in Texas heard arguments this week about whether it should enforce a ban on an abortion procedure that pro-life advocates argue is inhumane. Not surprisingly, opponents and critics in court and in editorials argued not only that the ban would be uncommon, but the attempt was “full of theatrics.”
These two opinions, diametrically opposed, demonstrate how little information the public really knows about abortion procedures and yet the dedication with which abortion advocates still fight for it.
On Monday, attorneys for the state of Texas presented its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing they should enforce Senate Bill 8, which banned a procedure called dilation and evacuation. The Texas legislature passed the bill last year, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed it.
But it was immediately blocked by Judge Lee Yeakel, who said the provision imposed an “undue burden” on women who wanted abortions. Counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood argued the ban should not be enforced.
The crux of the issue, and what outlets outside Texas have reacted to, is the procedure itself. What is dilation and evacuation? Why did the state try to ban it? To make her case, Heather Gebelin Hacker, the assistant solicitor general for the Texas Attorney General’s Office, described the heinous dilation and evacuation procedure as “barbaric.”
During the procedure, a doctor uses forceps to essentially tear the limbs off the baby off in order to extract them from the womb. If that isn’t barbaric, I’m not sure what is.
Additionally, Hacker presented evidence that there are other methods doctors can use to abort a baby that are far more humane, including potassium chloride injections, which are also fairly common and safe. Amazingly, Planned Parenthood argued that these methods were actually unsafe for the woman and insisted the dilation procedure was better.
Several other states in addition to Texas have passed similar bans. Some of the laws have not been able to go into effect because abortion groups challenged them.
For some bizarre reason, the Los Angeles Times editorial board, which carries some political gravitas, inserted themselves into the debate and argued that, in saying the ban should be upheld, the state of Texas was “full of theatrics.” Despite the fact that the Texas state legislature passed the ban, likely reflecting constituents’ desires, the LA Times claims the ban is more of a political stunt to hurt women:
The editorial also mocked Texas’ efforts to protect the dignity of unborn babies and said during arguments, counsel had been “calling it a ‘dismemberment abortion’ and describing the procedure in ghoulish detail.” Of course, the state made that argument because it’s true, and the procedure is indeed quite ghoulish. Saying otherwise is dishonest and ignorant.
The fact that there was not only an argument in a courtroom claiming that pulling limbs from a baby wasn’t actually dismemberment or inhumane but necessary and well within a woman’s rights, but that folks like those on the LA Times editorial board agreed, shows just how far abortion advocates are willing to go to protect abortion, one of the most sacrosanct ideas within the progressive party.
To them Roe v. Wade is not merely a law, but it represents a lifestyle, a right, and a movement which defies science, dignity, and the rights of the least among us.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
