Recently, Judge Lee Yeakel has struck down a provision for abortion laws that limited access to one of the most commonly used second-trimester abortion procedures, deeming it unconstitutional. This law, known as Senate Bill 8, would require that doctors make sure that the fetus was no longer living before performing the dilation and evacuation procedure.Under Senate Bill 8, the doctor would be required to stop the fetus’ heart before beginning the dilation and evacuation abortion. However, doing this creates extra risk for the mother, and makes the procedure more complicated overall. With Judge Yeakel’s new ruling, however, doctors will be able to perform the dilation and excavation procedure without having to ensure that the life of the fetus has been ended first. Judge Yeakel permanently barred the state of Texas from enforcing this senate bill, which protects both women and doctors from the added risk of the procedure.This new ruling is important because of the fact that it is an attempt to make things easier on the woman involved. Not only is the requirement of “fetal demise” costly, but it adds both extra time and risk to an already strenuous procedure. Also, the fact that abortion procedures are being looking into at this level of detail bring attention to something that is often overlooked. An added spotlight to this issue in a predominantly Pro-Life state like Texas has the potential to draw attention to not only abortion rights in the state, but women’s healthcare as a whole.
This ruling also seeks to protect the doctors involved with the procedure. Judge Yeakel believed that enforcing Senate Bill 8 would force doctors to go ageist their best judgement. The methods of stopping the fetus’ heart are not only painful and dangerous for the patient, but also require multiple doctor’s visits.
Despite Judge Yeakel’s ruling,
there is still quite a bit of division over this issue. Attorney General Ken Paxton
has already stated that he plans on appealing Judge Yeakel’s ruling. This
statement occurred almost right away after the ruling. Paxton described the
practice of the dilation and evacuation procedure without the provision for
fetal demise as “barbaric,” regardless of the added risk it creates for the
mother.
Regardless of the pushback that this ruling is facing, it is still considered to be a huge win among women’s rights groups. This is an example of Texas putting the rights of women and women’s’ health and best interests ahead of its own political agenda. Even though this ruling is being met with a great deal of criticism from other lawmakers in Texas, it is still a step in the right direction. It shows that the state can separate what it wants from what is best for the people. This is an idea that can extend far past the issue of abortion, and exemplifies perfectly what happens when the government works for us and takes into account what is best for the people that it governs, rather than strengthening its own beliefs. By prioritizing the health of the woman instead of Texas' political values, the state is becoming more Pro-Life than ever.
Regardless of the pushback that this ruling is facing, it is still considered to be a huge win among women’s rights groups. This is an example of Texas putting the rights of women and women’s’ health and best interests ahead of its own political agenda. Even though this ruling is being met with a great deal of criticism from other lawmakers in Texas, it is still a step in the right direction. It shows that the state can separate what it wants from what is best for the people. This is an idea that can extend far past the issue of abortion, and exemplifies perfectly what happens when the government works for us and takes into account what is best for the people that it governs, rather than strengthening its own beliefs. By prioritizing the health of the woman instead of Texas' political values, the state is becoming more Pro-Life than ever.
Comments
Post a Comment