Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes some women, but so what?

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin has filed a lawsuit against a Kentucky abortion facility, with state documents saying the premises were "filthy," used prescriptions that were nearly two decades past their due date, performed abortions without any state license, and had no ambulance agreement to transport women injured during botched abortion procedures.

The facility, EMW Women's Clinic in Lexington, serves no medical purpose aside from abortion, and does not have proper licenses to perform abortions, state inspectors said.

"This does not comply with Kentucky law and jeopardizes women's safety and lives,” the governor's 10-page lawsuit says.

Meanwhile, last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a very brief order allowing several Louisiana abortion clinics to reopen after a federal appeals court forced them to shut down because of unsafe conditions that didn't meet or violated regulations. The Supreme Court's decision mirrors one made last summer about Texas's admitting privileges law which aimed to increase safety regulations at abortion clinics. 

Opponents of safety regulations at abortion clinics argue that women should not be forced to run to court year after year to protect their "fundamental rights". 

But it's time people understand that terminating a pregnancy for no other reason than "convenience" to the mother is not a fundamental right, and has nothing to do with reproductive health because no reproduction is taking place. Only intentional actions to end reproduction are taking place, often surgically, which, like any surgical procedure, always, always carries risks. 

And it should be noted that when a medical emergency arises where a baby's life may need to be forfeited in order to save the mother, that is not abortion as the term is widely used, because typical abortion is the deliberate ending of the baby's life for the sole sake of ending it. Doctors do everything they can to save both the mother and baby in these types of circumstances, which are considered tragic by all parties involved, and even the Catholic Church teaches that the mother's life need not be sacrificed for her baby's life (though some mothers do of course choose their baby's life over their own in certain cases, e.g., those with cancer who choose life for their child rather than undergoing risky chemotherapy that may harm their baby). Unfortunately abortion advocates who term abortion as "reproductive health" miss the whole point of reproduction. Sadly, it has become an over-used phrase to give the abortion industry cover in its practice of ending human lives for profit, while major safety violations are ignored.

In fact, one of the complaints about the Texas law is precisely because the law tried to require abortion clinics to undergo renovations in order to comply with safety and ambulatory surgical center regulations where women undergo surgical abortions, and to have physician admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. For some reason, abortion proponents believe that clean facilities at an abortion clinic and the ability to rush a woman to a hospital should an emergency occur undermine women's rights.

I would bet though that if a dental clinic had filthy conditions, rats, unsterilized instruments, no license to practice, and no admitting privileges to a nearby hospital should a patient suddenly start hemorrhaging uncontrollably and need transport to the nearest emergency room (as is the case of too many of these abortion clinics), these same so-called pro-women's health advocates would be screaming for tighter controls. 

But as long as a clinic exists for the main purpose of extracting, not a tooth, but a baby prematurely from the womb, carry on. What does it matter if the woman's very life may be at risk? After all, abortion advocates are not concerned if the baby lives (obviously). Why would anyone believe they really care about the woman's life, physically, emotionally or spiritually? I'm not seeing the evidence.