More than 200 legislators recently filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court about June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Dr. Rebecca Gee, in her capacity as secretary of the Louisiana Health Department. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case March 3, 2020.
The amicus challenges June Medical’s “third-party standing,” and asks the Supreme Court to uphold Louisiana’s overwhelmingly bipartisan law protecting women by requiring all abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion facility.
At issue in this case is the legitimacy of abortionists’ so-called third-party standing, wherein they claim to act on behalf of their patients’ “constitutional rights.” In the past, courts have simply assumed this standing, but when these abortion providers dispute health and safety rules designed to protect patients — in this case, the requirement for physicians to have “admitting privileges” — a conflict of interest emerges between abortion-seeking patients and the abortionists who supposedly advocate for them.
Imagine how third-party standing might work in non-abortion-related scenarios. Think about restaurants that violate basic health codes. Customers sickened by contaminated food and injured in substandard facilities should expect the health department to protect the public from unscrupulous operators. Now, what would you think if those same unscrupulous operators were given standing to represent the health interests of the very people they sickened? Rather than complying with basic standards of the restaurant industry, they call these sick people “undue burdens” and sue the health department. That’s chutzpah!
That’s what June Medical has done to the Louisiana Health Department. Its standing before the court relies entirely on the theory that the interests of abortionists and those of women are the same.
Abortion Facilities Are Offering Atrocious ‘Care’
This corporation has a long history of substandard patient care. The state of Louisiana has documented numerous instances of unsanitary, expired, missing, and improperly stored instruments, medications, and medical supplies in its facilities. The facility has repeatedly subjected unsuspecting patients to the hands of unlicensed and uncredentialed medical staff.
Not only June Medical, but other abortion facilities and doctors have racked up dozens of citations from Louisiana health officials over more than two decades. These violations have resulted in catastrophic injury to patients and repeated violations of patient rights.
For instance, Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was caught in both 2009 and 2011 violating mandatory reporting laws in instances of incest and child rape. In 2014, it was still failing to record the father’s age in cases of pregnant minors. This points to a systematic papering-over of child abuse and statutory rape. No one knows how many girls who should have received help were, instead, sent home to their rapists.
Other minors were denied their right to have parental consent before invasive surgery. The facility violated patient rights when it put women out on the street before they were medically stable and allowed incompetent and unqualified staff to medicate them. At least one patient was forced to undergo a radical hysterectomy due to medical incompetence.
The list of such atrocities goes on and on. If this sounds like the laundry list of violations that preceded abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s murder conviction in Philadelphia, it should come as no surprise. Leroy Brinkley, the operator of Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge, used to employ Gosnell as an independent contractor. Like the Philadelphia abortionist, these violations were enabled because abortion facilities are routinely exempted from uniform public health standards.
Abortionists Are Not on the Side of Women
In 2014, Democratic Louisiana state Rep. Katrina Jackson introduced legislation to protect women by requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. This overwhelmingly bipartisan law passed 85-6 in the House and 34-3 in the Senate.
Regarding safe health practices, the interests of for-profit abortion facilities and women are in conflict. So how can abortionists realistically claim to represent the interests of women?
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring physicians and clinics are held to basic standards of care. But by giving Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and various abortion corporations third-party standing, it contradicts its own principle and undermines the interests of women.
The day after the legislators filed their brief, Time published an article titled, “Over 200 Members of Congress Urge Supreme Court to ‘Reconsider’ Abortion Rights under Roe v. Wade. Pro-Choice Advocates Say They’re Ignoring Public Opinion.” Abby Vesoulis managed to write 800 words about the brief without ever mentioning its fundamental point.
The challenge to June Medical’s standing constitutes the bulk of the brief and is supported by the documentation of dozens of unsanitary, dangerous, and illegal activities that made Louisiana’s law necessary. Time’s reportage never tells the reader about this challenge nor about even one instance of substandard care.
Neither does it tell the reader that the Fifth Circuit Court rejected June Medical’s claim that the law would force clinics to close. Instead, it said, “If the Supreme Court allows the Louisiana law to take effect, all but one abortion clinic in the state would close,” citing a CBS article to back up the assertion. But the CBS article did not make that fact claim. Rather, it said the Fifth Circuit doubted “that any clinics would have to close.”
Abortion Always Affects at Least Two People
Is this the kind of responsible and accurate reporting we can expect of Time? While failing to report the first 29 pages of a 35-page brief, it remained completely blind to every pro-woman argument.
At least two people are involved in every abortion. A child is being destroyed, and a woman is undergoing an invasive procedure. Extreme politicians and their media sycophants have become so focused on eradicating the child, they completely overlook the woman.
In a headlong rush to remove every obstacle to quick and cheap abortion, they run roughshod over the real interests of women. The full protection of public health laws is for all. Both the woman and the child should be seen and considered.
“Love them both” means that those who want to protect children are ever mindful of the well-being of women. It is high time those who want to destroy children should also be mindful of the well-being of women. After decades of pretending the interests of abortionists match the interests of women, June Medical v. Gee is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to let women be heard.