Pro-life Christian activist Autumn Leva said on June 28 that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against the state of Texas on June 27 is going to make abortions "less safe for women" (video below).
Leva works for the pro-life Family Policy Alliance, which is a political arm of the pro-life Christian organization Focus on the Family; neither group advocates for any kind of abortions.
"What the [Texas] law would have done is said that abortion facilities had to have admitting privileges with doctors at hospitals, just in case something were to go wrong during an abortion," Leva stated in a Family Policy Alliance video.
Anyone in an emergency situation can be admitted to a hospital via a doctor in the hospital's ER, regardless of admitting privileges at any clinic or doctor's office.
In fact, U.S. law requires hospital ERs to treat someone in a life-threatening situation or safely refer that person to a hospital ER that can. Numerous doctors in the U.S. do not have admitting privileges, even those who work at urgent care centers.
Leva later added:
And that also abortion clinics had to meet basic health and safety regulations just like any other outpatient surgical facility. So what the Supreme Court did was strike down that basic common sense law. So this could create problems for states in the future trying to pass these laws making abortion safer for women, or for states that already have the laws in place.
It remains to be seen the effects of what the Supreme Court decision will do. But the bottom line is we have now pro-abortion people celebrating a decision, saying that 'it's better for women,' when it makes abortion much less safe for women.
Stephanie Toti, who fought and won the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, gave a quite different version of the ruling to Democracy Now! on June 29.
During her interview with Toti, Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman stated:
I want to read from Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion for the majority. He wrote, quote, "[A]bortions taking place in an abortion facility are safe—indeed, safer than numerous procedures that take place outside hospitals and to which Texas does not apply its surgical-center requirements ... Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient’s own home," unquote.
Breyer also noted a colonoscopy, a procedure that typically takes place outside a hospital setting, has a mortality rate 10 times higher than an abortion. And the mortality rate for liposuction, another outpatient procedure, is 28 times higher than the mortality rate for abortion.
So, talk about the significance of the decision and these two particular regulations that they struck down—the surgery-style center you have to have and having admitting privileges at the local hospital.
Well, what’s so galling about these laws is that they are a sham. They are not designed to promote women’s health. And those statistics that you just read demonstrate that abortion is among the safest procedures that a patient can have in an outpatient setting.
If the state of Texas really believed that either one of these requirements was necessary or beneficial for patient health, then it would have applied it across the board to all procedures that you have in an outpatient setting, including those procedures that are far more complex and risky than abortion.
But it did not. This was just an effort to target abortion for special regulation to make it impossible for women to access the procedure. And that has a real harm. So women all across the state were being delayed in their ability to access abortion.