Why Don’t Consumer Protections Apply To The Abortion Industry?
.............
Abortion: Where We Don’t Protect Consumers Consumer rights and protections were at the center of the Hellerstedt, where the court aimed to assess the constitutionality of Texas laws requiring abortion clinics to meet the same facility and hospital admitting requirements as other surgical centers. The court’s majority opinion, as cited above, found that requiring abortion facilities to meet health and safety standards equal to similar outpatient surgical facilities was an “undue burden on abortion access,” and thus violated Supreme Court precedent creating an abortion-allowing right to privacy not found in the U.S. Constitution.
In other words, patient safety is a legitimate interest, but is not as important as availability. In holding up access to abortion as the measure of scrutiny for abortion regulations, the court has made it nearly impossible to enact the kind of consumer protections that apply to all other industries. But more than just contradicting the precedents set by countless consumer protections cases, the justices of the majority opinion contradict their own views of constitutional rights.
As an example, it is almost impossible to imagine any of the more liberal members of the Supreme Court applying this same reasoning to the Second Amendment, saying that criminal background checks and waiting periods constitute an undue burden on access to firearms, thereby violating the Constitution. In fact, we are constantly hearing that “constitutional rights aren’t absolute” and that “all rights have boundaries”—that is, all rights except for abortion.
No, the Supreme Court has made it clear that whatever laws exist to protect consumers from harmful business practices, they don’t apply to abortion, that the women who seek abortion only have a right to access, not safety. Even the right to be heard is discarded, as court completely neglected the testimonies of women the abortion industry has harmed. The Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt demonstrates that, when it comes to abortion, the goal is not to protect women, but to protect a political ideology: “Abortion, on demand and without apology”—or safety.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11/why-dont-consumer-protections-apply-to-the-abortion-industry/
Abortion clinics don't need gurney access say Democrats. Abortion clinics don't need to meet the standards of other outpatient centers says the Supreme Court. If they have an emergency, the doctor doing the abortion doesn't need admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, they can just drop her off at the ER door. The important thing is to do as many abortions as possible. Anything that might hinder that goal is evil according to liberal morality.
|
