If They Must Be There, Let’s Make Them Safe

This is family policy matter program is produced by the North Carolina family policy Council of profamily research unification organization dedicated to preserving the family and out from the studio here is John Rustin president North Carolina family policy Council. Thank you for joining us this week. Profamily policy matters is our pleasure to have Dr. Chris Gates to go with us on the program is senior fellow for regulatory policy at the family research Council in Washington DC. In addition to his great work in FRC previously worked at the Heritage foundation, the American enterprise Institute as a law clerk at the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and at the Federal Communications Commission. Chris is with us today to talk about an important case currently pending before the US Supreme Court called hold women's health. The Heller stead which involved a legal challenge to an abortion safety law that was passed in the state of Texas oral arguments in that case were heard earlier this month in FRC was one of several pro-life groups to file a friend of the court brief in support of the Texas law will be talking with Chris about that case, why it matters and when we can expect a ruling from the High Court. Chris thanks much for being with us today on family policy matters. While it's great to have you with us.

Chris is we begin what would you give us a little bit of background on the whole women's health case how it began and what key questions are pending before the Supreme Court won't be if your call a few years ago there was a pretty horrific abortion scandal in our state of Pennsylvania has threefold object when the authorities rated the abortion facility run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Oh yes, there were a lot of their prosecutions. Gosnell's prison, Maryland. People work with and what the person and wanted for the candlelight was that there were a lot of unsafe medical conditions in the state of Pennsylvania basically hadn't regulated properly or really anything conducted audits or inspections of the abortion facilities rejected well illustrates reacted to this regular conflicting states that reactive person decided to re-examine their abortion regulations and one states that this was so Texas and they called… Just a huge battle in the state of Texas in 2013. Overall ability to be to your couple aversions about being examined constitutionally up Supreme Court of United States, and to those provisions have to do with safety and one in particular has to do with the fact that the doctors perform abortions will be required to have admitting privileges for the hospital within the 20 miles of the abortion facility.

So if you refigure an abortion in your physician who is performing one yet to be able to admit your patient into a hospital and then there was another provision that essentially upgraded the quality of the facilities or to perform abortions and so there's also the kind of a category called ambulatory surgical centers and it turns out that earlier.2003 abortion after 15 weeks had to be carried out needs ambulatory surgical centers in Texas but after the Gosnell event there.

Texas adjusted spliced all abortions andprovisions have to do with something bringing ambulatory surgical center have to do things like, you know, having hallways and wide enough for gurneys to get a driveway spaces you know that an ambulance can get to returns on the state of Texas. There's something on the order of 400 of these animals were surgical centers, so it's not like this is where sold in the number of the abortion facilities in Texas do meet these standards.

Fact once he performed locally term abortions.

So that's the crux of it and so did Mr. provisions were challenged. The idea was that they imposed an undue burden on the right to have an abortion because they made it too difficult for doctors to do abortions, so that that sort of just of the case. Thank you Chris. I have unfortunately North Carolina that same year in 2013 salt somewhat similar legislation to what Texas past, but I know that all I really don't Texas because of the litigation over HB two, and so as you stated, there are several provisions of that legislation that have been the subject of litigation and now the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas. In this case. Fortunately, talk little bit about the circuit ruling if you will, and why it is really important to the potential outcome of this case right the your Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit essentially upheld these provisions and then abortion clinics have not challenged that ruling the resource is important is that with the death of justice Cleo if the Supreme Court were to have a form for holding about the constitutionality of these provisions effectual. What happens with the Fifth Circuit decision would stay in place and that's that's more significant than the decision of the extroverted surgeon. It was written by JD Judge Jones done Fifth Circuit. One of the things that they recognize is that the Fifth Circuit noted that as a matter fact from evidence presented by the Planned Parenthood itself that there were something on the order of 220 women every year in Texas wind up going to emergency rooms after having abortions and so that's quite a large number and I think it kind of fire gives you the sense of why this is important. Recited are the opening of our brief people visit a dentist by Dr. dermatologist or your nose and throat specialist did not typically leave an ambulance. If this is frightening to calmly occurrence happens at abortion facilities and it's really not acceptable that you would have these kinds of health problems in the Fifth Circuit took note of the fixer during these proceedings. Planned Parenthood conceded this record. I think that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after speaking abortion.

That was a significant ruling and one time while courts don't come out favored state regulations, but here the Chris I think it's important to recognize that while we heard a lot about the Kermit Gosnell situation and the atrocities that took place at his clinic in Pennsylvania that this was really a reaction not only to that case but also just applying common sense to the circumstances that you so well described where you God. Oftentimes an invasive surgical procedure that's taking place, and because of Supreme Court rulings in past few years. In past decades abortion has been treated differently in many respects to other surgical types of operations and so an end.

In many cases, abortion doctors have gotten a pass on this and have not had to face the scrutiny and the real common sense regulations that other surgical centers have had to rinse out just like in the state of Texas and in the discussions about this. Similar legislation in North Carolina.

The lawmakers understood. Not only were they dealing with the atrocities that came to light. As a result of the Kermit Gosnell case but also just the real-life circumstances what's taking place at abortion clinics across our nation. And that's exactly what happened here in Texas. Now Chris, let's talk specifically about some of the arguments that were made by opponents of the Texas law. When this case appeared before the Supreme Court for all arguments. I know that one is that the Texas regulations have resulted in the closing of number of abortion clinics in that state.

Is this an accurate argument and why would this be an issue. The Supreme Court might consider and how it ultimately rules in this case how you analyze them. They located it out the truth or closures. That's normally not a defense for regulatory scheme. I think that you would find in any other context right then. The point is that ineffective argument going on, on the other boys Fifth Circuit in Mississippi, for example, the claims being made that all the abortion facilities that state will have to close.

Sort of like the regulators are holding a gun to its own and say that he can't regulate me or I'll shoot right away law will normally work since you say to people wall will not allow there to be barriers to entry in the abortion business that place undue burden on abortion as I go to performing these these regulations about inventory, surgical centers, new sort of thing are in place and there are clinics all of America little working within regulations view their having his privileges for doctors so the weighted of the world normally works is that somebody should have to enter the market and have a center that meets the standards and have the doctors that are good enough they can get privileges somewhere so having a different issue. I think the standard by which we operate is that, especially in Texas where there are a number facilities letters that are open and there's no problem if you are in Texas getting abortion backplane furniture no longer in the in the litigation.

So their people dropped out about some part of the argument, there shouldn't be a defense against regulation that you're not willing to meet the regulations that really what which should be written normally operative. A reasonable regulation due on their 440 facilities of various kinds and factors that meet these regulations on the facilities right to other doctors have admitting privileges and also perform surgery may live the kind of things that seem pretty reasonable birthing of the FairPlay facility still open in Texas and the other thing is that you should never analyze a problem in terms of the type of regulation X reasonable Chris to talk about your thoughts with respect to the significance of the Supreme Court ruling in this case, and when that might happen but we know that there will be a decision by the end of June because that's from the term and so what that means is that you have a phalanx for local just who will vote to strike down regulation and the question is that you have Thomas Leto and Chief Justice Roberts are willing to uphold regulation. The question then is whether Kennedy was one of the three justices who planned parenthood versus Casey standard in place. Whether or not he's going to vote to uphold the regulations about timely oral argument seem to be some kind of issues about whether or not the work facts needed to be clarified that there might be a remand back to lower courts to have some questions answered in this record inactive will strictly justice Kennedy may be looking to get some clarification on who is going to be the justice film school.

Yes Ethan it out because maybe you might not want to approach this and make have a final decision with just a four form and write out a 44 nobody up there. It may be that you know he's going to side with the global medical bill of 53 decision, but with after justice cleared God the best that could happen in terms of a pro-life position was can be aligned with us on everything that it will be a four for time they would uphold. There would be no essentially no ruling siding issue with the Fifth Circuit decision would stand but that wouldn't have any effect on your cases in other parts of the country and so if you can fall apart country where these kind of regulations were struck down that Court of Appeals decision would would be upheld so in a way this kind of wall and surgical holding pattern until that that position is still assuming that Kennedy would go to a pole. Please if you going to go and then vote against the Texas regulations. Then I would be 53. The addition of another liberal excited. Wouldn't matter the addition of a conservative will make a fire for so you just a matter of whether or not, but what is going to do. I think it's sort of a fair thing to wonder will deftly be keeping our eyes open and watching with great interest in this and unfortunately that Chris were nearly out of time for this week, but I want to give you an opportunity to let our listeners know where they can go to learn more about your work at the family research Council when you come to our website.

It's really W.FRC.org if you're interested more about this case and with that Dr. Chris Jay Sekulow, thank you for being with us on family policy matters today for your great work at the family research Council. We truly appreciate our partnership with FRC and just are grateful for your willingness to take some time out of your busy schedule to discuss this case with us and thank so much for the insights. Likewise, bring out what great work you all did on North Carolina. So it's very important to track his issues. I'm avoiding a good ruling here in states like Texas family policy matters. Information and analysis, future of the North Carolina family policy Council join us weekly for discussion on policy issues affecting the family. If you have questions or comments, please contact 919-807-0800 or visit our website and see family.org