Abortion, Texas, The Supreme Court, And The New York Times

On Thursday, Linda Greenhouse, who has been writing for the New York Times regarding Supreme Court cases since the 1970’s, delved into the latest drama unfolding at the nation’s highest court: abortion. Texas, as have many other states in the South, enacted a new law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Even as federal courts have upheld the law, Greenhouse wrote an op-ed highly critical of the law and the pro-life movement. Any American with a sense of morality, even if you consider yourself pro-choice, should immediately cringe at some of the words she wrote. This editorial is a direct response to her op-ed.

Wendy Davis Greenhose writes:

The official reason for the new requirements is to protect women’s health — “to raise standards of care and ensure the health and safety of all abortion patients,” as the state told the Supreme Court in the brief it filed last week urging the Supreme Court not to hear the clinics’ appeal. Is Texas suffering from an abortion-related health problem? Not exactly. There were 360,059 abortions performed in Texas from 2009 through 2013 — that is, before H.B. 2 took effect — resulting in no deaths and a minuscule rate of complications requiring a hospital visit.

Am I the only one who caught that? If from 2009 to 2013 there were 360,059 abortions performed in Texas, how in the world did that result in no deaths? What about the deaths of 360,059 innocent children at the profit of Planned Parenthood? Do they not count?

I’m going to ignore that logic (or lack thereof) and move on to her point – the health of the mother. While most procedures are generally safe, there have been countless reports, investigations, and studies related to severe injury or death, not to mention psychological damage, as a result of legal abortion attempts. Is it that draconian to ask a doctor who performs a potentially life-threatening procedure to have the privilege to admit patients at a nearby hospital? If anything, it should be the “Women’s Health” movement that supports such laws as they only benefit women. After all, at a legitimate medical facility, many of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented.

One Dallas clinic was forced to close in June after 36 years because its medical director, while initially offered admitting privileges, couldn’t meet the requirement to send 48 patients a year to the hospital. Even the more common 10-patient requirement is impossible for abortion providers to meet.

Here is the main problem with her argument. This case is not and should not be about what restrictions the hospitals may or may not have on handing out admitting privileges to doctors from other clinics. Abortion restrictions are legal; the Supreme Court made that clear in Gonzales v Carhart and Planned Parenthood v Casey. The question here is whether asking doctors who perform life-threatening procedures to have hospital admitting privileges is an undue burden. Each hospital sets their own rules on who and when to give them out; and if the pro-choice movement has a problem with their rules, they should take that up in a separate case. It is completely irrelevant to this case. Improving the safety of abortion clinics in no way presents an undue burden. Texas isn’t saying you can only have 10 clinics; you can have 1,000 in the state if you want, and abortion rates can be at their highest in history, as long as the doctors performing them meet the safety guidelines and requirements.

The state claims in its Supreme Court brief that the absence of an abortion clinic in the entire western half of the state is of no concern because women in El Paso, where the two abortion clinics will have to close, can simply travel one mile across the state line to a clinic in nearby Santa Teresa, N. M. New Mexico, however, has not imposed any TRAP laws. It requires neither admitting privileges nor a hospital-like setting. So Texas’ interest in protecting the health of its abortion patients evidently stops at the state line even as it sends women seeking abortions in West Texas across that line.

Once again, Linda, you are swimming in irrelevant waters. If it was up to Texas, they would enact such a law in New Mexico as well, but it is not up to Texas. They can only enact regulations within their own borders. So yes, Texas’ interest in protecting the health of Texan women stops when you leave Texas. Texas has no say or interest in what happens in New Mexico. The brief was a response to a common argument made by Whole Woman’s Health in which they say that women from El Paso, virtually the only major city in Western Texas, don’t have access to abortion providers. Texas responded by saying it was false; they have an abortion provider closer to them than 80% of the state’s population, even in Eastern and Southern Texas. It may happen to be in another state, which means that Texas can’t regulate it; but crossing a state line in no way presents an undue burden on a woman’s access to an abortion.

If a women has to drive 3 hours in Mississippi to get an abortion, as has been the case for years (the only clinic in the state is located in the central, capital city of Jackson, roughly 3 hours from the northern and southern tip of the state), and no court has ruled that an undue burden, how could driving one or two miles be one?

She continues to argue that in fact this law does impose an undue burden on women, but she fails to mention the fact that the state is not the one imposing the hospitals restrictions; therefore, the state is not placing an undue burden on anybody. As I previously mentioned, in the eyes of Texas, there can be a clinic every square mile. As long as they have access to a nearby hospital and follow safety regulations, Texas is OK with it. If banning partial-birth abortions was not seen as an undue burden, how can this be? There is no way having TEN CLINICS (with the possibility for many more) in one state can present a “substantial obstacle” to women who want an abortion.

In the end, Linda Greenwood spends a lot of time discussing Kennedy’s majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey and in Obergefell v Hodges (what same-sex marriage has to do with this topic is beyond me). Yet she virtually ignores Gonzales v Carhart; Kennedy’s opinion allowed for abortion restrictions that undoubtedly reduced the number of overall abortions, and has become a rallying point for pro choice activists all over the country. I trust that Justice Kennedy will continue to balance access to legal abortion services to women’s health, as he did in his Carhart opinion. This law is in no way an attempt to reduce the number of legal abortions, though there is no doubt many of us hope that is a result. At the end of the day, its only purpose, and the only merit the Court should debate, is whether making abortions safer is a legal restriction to abortion. They voted once that it is, and I pray they do it again.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

WATCH: Donald Trump Just Shut Down His Wife’s Attackers By Pointing Out The 1 Thing They Missed

Donald Trump dismissively destroyed the critics of his wife, Melania, noting that long before she became his wife, she had risen to the top in a very tough business.

“She was a very successful model. She did very well before she met me,” Trump said Tuesday, responding to a New York Times magazine piece that called Melania Trump “an average trophy house wife.”

Trump said his wife not only possess “outer beauty” but also “inner beauty.”

“She has tremendous warmth and a tremendous heart and I think when it comes to women’s health issues and other things, I think she’s gonna be a standout,” he said.

“She will be a great representative of our country,” Trump said.

In a discussion of the Times magazine profile on The Kelly File, former Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz called it a “salacious” piece: “It is so condescending; ‘trophy spouse.’ What other potential First Lady gets treated like this?”

Kurtz added that the Times had at one point planned to include a Twitter picture of Melania Trump in a bikini, but later changed its mind.

The piece began, “Lying prone on a rug adorned with the Great Seal of the United States, the woman who might someday be first lady is wearing high-heeled sandals and a crimson bikini.”

Asked on Fox News if he though the slam of his spouse was unfair, Trump’s reply was moderate.

“I don’t know. I don’t know what to think anymore. I get so much press that’s unfair, it’s like bad statements actually turn out to be good,” he said.

Trump’s supporters were very clear in their opinions.

“What a totally bad thing to do to criticize anyone like that,” Phyllis Loos commented on American News. “She is a very beautiful person and will represent our country like a lady should. After all our private life is just that and is nobody else’s business. I believe in Trump and know he will fight for our country.”

h/t: American News

Watch: Fox News Reporter Says The Harsh Truth And Obama Spokesman Hates It. Things Get Heated.

When White House press secretary Josh Earnest attempted to describe the recent allegations against Planned Parenthood as a witch hunt, Fox News Channel’s Kevin Corke took him to task.

Earnest alleged that multiple unbiased sources concluded the series of undercover videos depicting Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the sale of harvested baby parts was in fact a heavily edited smear campaign.

“Who are these impartial observers to whom you refer,” Corke asked, “and can you understand why there are so many American people who feel like their voices should also be heard here at the White House?”

He went on to conclude that “there are people, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, who feel that what has been revealed in the videos is grotesque at a minimum, if not criminal at worst.”

Earnest tried to defend his position by declaring: “The New York Times has described the release of these videos as a campaign of deception.”

Corke once again challenged Obama’s surrogate.

“You’re not calling the Times impartial are you?” he asked.

“Of course I am, Kevin,” Earnest responded.

“You can’t say that the Times is impartial about all things vis-à-vis Planned Parenthood,” Corke asserted. “I’ve never seen them criticize Planned Parenthood for anything; and yet you’re saying that they’re impartial somehow.”

In a snarky, thinly veiled reference to Corke’s employer, Earnest responded: “I’m going to resist the urge to raise questions about the partiality of any news organization in this room – particularly in the context of this discussion.”

Perceived by many as a low blow, Earnest’s gibe earned scorn from numerous online critics.

“I never thought that I could despise someone more than Jay Carney,” one reader commented on TheBlaze.

h/t: TheBlaze

Should Congress defund Planned Parenthood? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Clinton Tells New York Times To Change Story. And They Do It.

So, there is ANOTHER career-ending Hillary Clinton scandal in the news. Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s emails. Read the full story in the New York Times.

Wait, did I say “career-ending?” What I meant to say was, should be career-ending but will probably never be covered because the media wants to attend Clinton’s cocktail parties.”

What’s interesting is that this story is apparently so bad, Hillary’s people called the New York Times and told them to change it.

Which they, of course, did:

Politico reports:

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.”

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

Yes, the same New York Times that stands by their Marco Rubio has a luxury boat story changed this because Hillary yelled at them.

Because journalism.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The NY Times Just Did Something Stunning At Hillary’s Request, Immediately Paid A Big Price

Feedback from fellow reporters has been less than stellar after it was revealed that the New York Times made significant edits (including changing the headline) to a story it wrote about two inspector generals’ requests that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation regarding the use of a private email server by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Politico reports that the original headline ran by the Times Thursday was “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.” However, that headline was changed sometime after midnight to the less damning “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

Likewise, the lead sentence was changed from saying that the probe would be “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state,” to “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

One of the writers of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained to Politico early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, released a statement on Twitter on Friday: “Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

Mediaite’s Alex Griswold points out: “What [Merrill] left off was that the story had been “significantly revised” because of pressure from the Clinton camp.”

In March at a press conference at the U.N., Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of sensitive information with her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

A former senior State Department official found Clinton’s claim lacked credibility. He told the New York Times in March: “’I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified…Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.’”

On Friday, the Times finally decided to inform its readers of the change to its Thursday story.

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Mediaite chronicled the critical responses of some in the media–from both Left and Right–to the Times’ “stealth edit.”

NY Times changes Hillary Story III - Tweet 1

Perhaps the hardest hitting rebuke came from Ricochet’s Stephen Miller:

NY Times changes Hillary Story - Tweet 1As reported by Western Journalism, one of Clinton’s claims from her U.N. press conference about her emails has been shown to be false. The State Department confirmed last month that she did not turn over all her work-related emails. Select Committee on Benghazi chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement regarding the revelation: “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

According to the Times, the Justice Department has not decided whether to open a criminal investigation into the transmission of classified material through Clinton’s private email accounts.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth