In what can only be seen as legislating from the bench, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law in Mississippi, which requires abortion clinics to have admitting privileges, is unconstitutional. This meant that the one lone clinic, which murders the unborn, will be allowed to remain open, even without the ability to admit a woman who has complications. Yet, the fight is not over.

Christiannews.net reports:

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it hear its case surrounding an admitting privileges law that could close the state's last abortion facility.

The state will push this fight to the highest court. The reason for the difficulty is that the last facility in Mississippi was unable to obtain the needed privileges. This meant that they would have to close, just as many others were forced to do.

Christiannews.net adds:

After the bill was signed into law, Jackson Women's Health Organization, the last abortion facility in the state, filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the requirements. During a hearing, the facility explained in court that it had been unsuccessful in obtaining admitting privileges, and was granted six months of additional time to comply. However, none of the area hospitals agreed to partner with the facility despite the extension.

The thing that should be noticed is that there were no hospitals in the Jackson area that wanted to partner with this, or any other, abortion clinic. It might be that the liability costs would be too high, it might be for ethical reason. In any case, the hospitals in the area refused to allow these abortion doctors to practice within their system.

"They were clear that they didn't deal with abortion and they didn't want the internal or the external pressure of dealing with it," said administrator Diane Derzis.

The issue for the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court is one of clarity and consistency.

Christian News further reports:

On Wednesday, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood appealed the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that the matter needs to be clarified by the court as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld an identical law in Texas.

This means that it is possible that the 5th Circuit had ruled different in the Texas case because of the situation. Texas is currently not in danger of being without abortion clinics. Therefore, there is not a constitutional issue with their requirement. Conversely, the fact that Mississippi will not have any abortion clinics makes their law unconstitutional.

This is not how constitutional law is supposed to work. If it is constitutional for Texas, it must be for Mississippi. And if it is constitutional for Texas, while they have plenty of abortion clinics, it will be when they have seen them shut down by this law.

Yet, the majority opinion states just the opposite. They ruled based on the availability of abortions in Mississippi rather than constitutionality. They wrote:

"Given that the Supreme Court long ago determined that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose an abortion, the ultimate issue in this appeal is whether the State of Mississippi can impose a regulation that effectively will close its only abortion clinic."

If we take this to its logical conclusion, this would mean that Mississippi is responsible for making abortion available. Does this mean that if Mississippians decides they do not want to kill their unborn children that the state has to make them do so? See how stupid that sounds?

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.