candlegal
Historic Pro-Life Legislation Becomes Law as Planned Parenthood Announces Closing of Three Facilities
July 19, 2013 at 8:00 AM


7/18/2013 Austin, TX -- Texas Governor Rick Perry, joined by dozens of Texas legislators Thursday morning, signed House Bill 2 into law.

House Bill 2 raises the standard of care for women in Texas receiving abortions by requiring that all abortion facilities be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers. Additionally, the bill bans abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy. The bill also requires that abortion physicians have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. Finally, House Bill 2 requires that the physician administering abortion-inducing drugs comply with FDA regulations.

Joe Pojman, Ph. D., Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life said, "This is a historic bill that builds on the successes of previous sessions we have worked hard to achieve. Those include the sonogram law, parental consent and notification laws, defunding planned parenthood, and the Prenatal Protection (personhood)."

Abortion facilities will be required to meet the same safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers beginning September 1, 2014. The remaining provisions of the bill go into effect 91 days after the special session ends.

Shortly after Governor Perry signed House Bill 2 into law Planned Parenthood announced that three facilities will be ending services in late August including; Huntsville; Lufkin; and Bryan abortion facility, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast president and CEO, Melaney Linton, cited "an increasingly hostile environment for providers of reproductive health care in undeserved communities," as a reason for the closures.

Joe Pojman, Ph. D., Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life said, "Passing SB 7 in 2011 is bearing fruit. Shifting millions in tax dollars from Planned Parenthood to providers of comprehensive primary care is causing the abortion giant's empire to crumble. "

Abby Johnson, pro-life advocate and former director of the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Bryan, TX said "This is a historic day for Texas women and the unborn because HB 2 was signed into law, but today is also a personal victory for me because after a lot of hard work and prayer my former abortion facility is finally going to be closing down."



source




 




Replies

  • candlegal
    July 19, 2013 at 8:15 AM


    Pro-abortionists consider response to Texas’s HB 2

    By Dave Andrusko

    TXprotester2The headline on yesterday’s story in the Texas Tribune read, “Groups Weigh Legal Challenge to Abortion Bill.”

    By “groups” Shefali Luthra meant the usual suspects including the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Here’s the opening:

    “There are no decisions about litigation, but I think that may be the course we have to follow,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. Burke said the ACLU Texas legal team is evaluating potential challenges to the bill and that any litigation would be part of a larger strategy that includes attempting to influence elections. The organization is one of a handful considering a legal challenge to the restrictions.”

    (Planned Parenthood is “weighing its options.”) Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law. The law takes effect 91 days after the second special session ends, according to Luthra.

    There are four primary components to HB 2: a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy–the point at which medical evidence demonstrates the unborn child can feel pain–unless the mother’s life is in danger; the abortionist would be required to administer chemical abortifacients in person, rather than via videoconferencing where he is never in the same room with the mother; the abortionist must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles; and a requirement that abortions be performed at an ambulatory surgical center.

    Reading Luthra’s story, not surprisingly, the latter provision is least high on their list since it does not take effect until 2014. Or at least that’s what they were telling Luthra.

    The brunt of the case against the bill is that it conflicts with Roe as modified by the 1992 Casey Supreme Court decision (the “undue burden” test) and that a similar law was enjoined (Arizona). Let’s take a quick look at this.

    Does the State have a “compelling interest” in protecting from abortion unborn children capable of experiencing pain beyond imagination? Were this law challenged and to reach the United States Supreme Court, the Justices would be asked to recognize that science has not stood still over the past four decades.

    Is it an example of an “undue burden” or concern for women’s safety to require that the abortionist actually be in the same room as the woman ingesting the abortifacients? According to an FDA report dated April 30, 2011, in the United States alone, 14 women have died since September 2000 while another 612 were hospitalized. As NRLC’s Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon has warned repeatedly, there have been thousands of “adverse events,” including 339 cases in which blood loss was serious enough to require transfusions, according to the FDA.

    Likewise, if the abortionist does not have admitting privileges, he cannot be part of the treatment team if there are complications and she is rushed to a hospital.

    Finally, the atrocities committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell have driven home a truth too long suppressed: too often there are either no abortion clinic regulations or if there are, they are loosely enforced (for that read, “ignored”). The Abortion Industry would have you believe that abortion is safe-safe (for the mother) and that it can easily self-regulate. Neither is true, which testimony at trial would bring out.

    According to Luthra, Janet Crepps, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, “said she could not say with certainty whether the Center for Reproductive Rights would bring a lawsuit against the state, but she said it ‘would be very difficult to sit by’ and let HB 2 take effect.”

    Crepps pointed out has a “long history of bringing litigation against Texas,” including Texas’ 2011 sonogram law.

    Neither Luthra nor Crepps pointed out that they lost that challenge. (See “Appeals Court Opens Way to Immediate Enforcement of Texas Sonogram law” )

    source

  • 12hellokitty
    July 19, 2013 at 8:16 AM

    So why didn't Planned Parenthood just agree to comply with the new law?  

    I guess safe abortions are not profitable.



  • Citygirlk
    July 19, 2013 at 8:25 AM

    This is awesome. So if you need a Pap smear and you don't have a lot of money too bad for you honey, we only care about the unborn. Oh and you say you also need birth control at a good price since you have no insurance well that's toobad, but hey here's the good part at least you can get pregnant with child you can't afford and go on welfare at least untill we decide to limit that too.

  • candlegal
    July 19, 2013 at 8:25 AM

    Good question.  I guess they don't want anyone to inspect them .

    Quoting 12hellokitty:

    So why didn't Planned Parenthood just agree to comply with the new law?  

    I guess safe abortions are not profitable.




  • candlegal
    July 19, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    Maybe Obamacare will take care of it for them.  Oh, that's right, thats not working out too well either, is it?    Texas has plenty of clinics that don't do abortions.  They won't have a problem.

    Quoting Citygirlk:

    This is awesome. So if you need a Pap smear and you don't have a lot of money too bad for you honey, we only care about the unborn. Oh and you say you also need birth control at a good price since you have no insurance well that's toobad, but hey here's the good part at least you can get pregnant with child you can't afford and go on welfare at least untill we decide to limit that too.


  • gsprofval
    July 19, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    It will make abortions safer for the mother which is a good thing even though abortions are wrong.

  • gsprofval
    July 19, 2013 at 8:32 AM

    In a way, I hate to see Planned Parenthood close because they do help a lot of women with low cost health care. However, it doesn't bother me at all to see the abortion part closed.

  • candlegal
    July 19, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    I don't have a problem with them closing.  We have plenty of clinics in Texas that don't do abortions but can do the rest.

    Quoting gsprofval:

    In a way, I hate to see Planned Parenthood close because they do help a lot of women with low cost health care. However, it doesn't bother me at all to see the abortion part closed.


  • lga1965
    by lga1965
    July 19, 2013 at 8:33 AM

     Joe Pojman, Ph. D., Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life said, "Passing SB 7 in 2011 is bearing fruit. Shifting millions in tax dollars from Planned Parenthood to providers of comprehensive primary care is causing the abortion giant's empire to crumble

    **********************

    Abortion giant?

    This is such a bizarre and incorrect way of describing Planned Parenthood. I am so glad I don't live in Texas, the land of the controlling, bigoted, misogynistic  idiots.

  • tanyainmizzou
    July 19, 2013 at 8:34 AM
    The Bryan and Huntsville ones are a shame to close because the Bryan one does abortions twice a month and the Huntsville one doesn't do them at all.

    The Bryan one, which I used to drive by several times a week, served 1000's of college students with cheap BC. It was cheaper to go there for it than campus' Quack Shack.

    Same thing in Huntsville. It serves not only women, but men could get tested for an STD without mommy and daddy knowing.