There's One Figure in WaPo/ABC News' Poll on Biden That's a Potential Election...
How Dave Portnoy Reacted to a NYT Reporter Roaming Around His Pizza Festival
So, That's Why Zelensky Can Wine and Dine With the World's Finest With...
Texas National Guardsmen Attempt to Stop the Flow of Illegal Immigrants Into Eagle...
Joe Biden Hates You (Hate Him Back)
Biden-Migration: More Aliens Than 32 States
The Democrats Will Never Do That in America!
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 184: Psalm 27 - For Those Who Need...
Cheering for America
What’s the Matter with Latin America, and the Media?
Why We'll 'Definitely' Be Talking About Trump's Heartbeat Comments for Months
The Message of Deion Sanders
My Loyalty Is to the Lord, Not to a Political Candidate or Party
The Left Throws Joe Biden Under the Bus: 'Nightmare Scenario for Democrats'
Does This Mean Newsom Is Running for President?

The Genocide the Supreme Court and Medical Groups Unleashed

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of
AP Photo/Steve Helber

There’s too much power vested in nine people in black robes. It only takes five justices, though, to make decisions that impact generations. And they’ve been Supremely wrong, repeatedly. In Dred Scott vs. Sanford, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and, therefore, not afforded constitutional rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, both written and passed solely by Republicans, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In Plessy v. Ferguson, despite the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th), an arrogant Supreme Court affirmed codified racial discrimination in what should be called Separate and Unequal. In Minor v. Happersett, the majority on the Court refused to recognize a woman’s right to vote. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are in a long tradition of tragic rulings from America’s highest Court.

We keep hearing cries of “Precedent!” from those who want to ignore the devastation that egregious Supreme Court opinions have had on our society. And now, with nearly 62 million human lives aborted from existence by “precedent," it’s long overdue to address the conjuring of rights out of thin air by those donning those black robes. 

Now a new Supreme Court case, June Medical Services v. Russo, reminds the nine justices of what their predecessors have unleashed. The bill, which prompted the legal challenge, was authored by an African-American pro-life Democrat, Rep. Katrina Jackson of Louisiana. She calls abortion “modern-day genocide.” The pro-abortion Left, however, is demanding that abortionists need not be credentialed, licensed, accountable or have any hospital admitting privileges. They’re making their plea, through the ACLU of course, that their sacrosanct “abortion access” is far more important than the actual health of women. 


Sadly, I was too sick to be able to deliver my speech ar the Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 4th, but an amazing array of pro-life, pro-women, pro-liberty advocates from across the nation stood with Louisiana to protect women and protect life. Led by Live Action’s Alison Centofante (who is currently pregnant), the rally displayed such a stark contrast between those who believe women’s lives matter and those, on the other side, who believe only access to abortion—no matter how Gosnell-like it is—matters. 

Act 620 is simply a response to the nonpartisan Gosnell Grand Jury’s report recommendations: “If oversight agencies expect to prevent future Dr. Gosnells, they must find the fortitude to enact and enforce the necessary regulations. Rules must be more than words on paper. We recommend that the Pennsylvania Department of Health plug the hole it has created for abortion clinics. They should be explicitly regulated as ambulatory surgical facilities, so that they are inspected annually and held to the same standards as all other outpatient procedure centers.”

Funny how those so fixated on the historical precedent of Roe v. Wade forget about history that occurred on 3801 Lancaster Avenue in Philly just a few years ago. No more Gosnells! Well, unless you’re a pro-abortion activist who ignores the collateral damage of women killed in the name of protecting the back-alley abortion. Admitting privileges are a basic standard of care for real doctors.


My organization, The Radiance Foundation, was honored to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to support Act 620, known as the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act. Those most at risk, of course, are those in Louisiana’s black communities which comprise 61.2 percent of the state’s abortion numbers. The Douglass Leadership Institute, Restoration Project, Issues 4 Life Foundation, Frederick Douglass Foundation, National Black Pro-life Union, Project 21, Everlasting Light Ministries, and Dr. Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King) were co-signers in this powerful brief that presented the documented cases of racial discrimination and needless deaths of women at the hands of the abortion industry. 

Recently, medical associations have been addressing what they call institutional racism in health care yet ignore where it is most glaringly and fatally obvious—in an industry that kills for a living. The American Public Health Association (APHA) declares: “Racism hurts the health of our nation…To achieve health equity and create the healthiest nation in one generation, we must address injustices caused by racism.” You mean like requiring predatory abortionists to abide by the same rules of health care as other physicians? APHA radically supports abortion (especially among minorities) and opposes any accountability, whatsoever, for abortionists. 


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) declares: “Patient handoffs [which happen with admitting privileges] are a necessary component of current medical care. Accurate communication of information about a patient from one member of the health care team to another is a critical element of patient care and safety.” Yet, the radically pro-abortion ACOG protests any laws requiring these very standards of care only when applied to abortion businesses. In what can only be described as political extremism, ACOG contradicts itself by claiming that patient handoffs, and the vital communication that they require, are not “necessary for continuity of care." The American Medical Association, too, has jumped on the anti-admitting privileges bandwagon with its recent public advocacy of abortion, particularly among African-Americans. Both groups’ non-medical politics directly conflict with the care needed by patients these physicians have vowed to medically serve.  

ACOG falsely claims: “Admitting privilege mandates are not accepted by the medical, legal, or research community.”

Funny, because back in 2004 over 30 major medical associations—including ACOG and AMA—all signed a Statement on Patient Safety Principles for Office-Based Surgery declaring, in part: “Core Principle #4 – Physicians performing office-based surgery must have admitting privileges at nearby hospital, a transfer agreement with another physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, or maintain an emergency transfer agreement with a nearby hospital.”


What’s changed since 2004? Politics. Apparently, the pro-abortion Left will always accept risk and lethal harm to women when it comes to abortionists. These predatory “physicians” get a free pass from those relying on the Supreme Court to make yet another supremely wrong decision. Let’s pray they don’t. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos