Undoubtedly the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt overturning Texas’ anti-abortion law was a victory for women.
The restrictions Texas tried to place on abortion clinics in its H. R. 2 legislation have already had the effect of closing most abortion clinics in Texas. The legislation, a barely masked attempt at disguising a new abortion law in sheep’s clothing, required doctors to be admitted at neighboring hospitals instead of associating with an admitted doctor. It also required abortion clinics to be equipped as full surgery centers.
These restrictions, even admitted to by the proponents, would not have made one difference in the health of women seeking an abortion.
They were simply added to make getting an abortion more difficult.
Maybe they could have required an Italian speaking six-foot-tall mustachioed dominatrix at the door too?
But did you know that strict Judeo-Christian opposition to abortions is fairly new?
Interesting enough, in the 19th century, the Catholic Church condoned abortions up to the time of “quickening” defined as when a woman felt the fetus move inside her, at about 26 weeks.
And even the Old Testament, now properly translated from the original Hebrew, outlines an abortion procedure, the drinking of a liquid, under the guidance of the priest in the temple. In this specific case, the man had accused his wife of adultery, but couldn’t prove it, so he sought an abortion for this child that might not be his (Numbers 5:12-31).
Are we making progress?
At least this Supreme Court decision takes us a step in the right direction!