Obama issues mind-numbingly contradictory statement on #RoeAt41

Obama confused

Duh.

Let’s play “spot the contradiction”, shall we?

President Obama issued a statement today on the 41st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision by expressing his continued commitment to being one of the most radically far leftist Presidents on this issue in American history.  Here’s the statement in full (hat tip):

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Ummm .. did you catch that?  The President “reaffirms” the “right” of a woman to terminate her unborn developing child for any reason she sees fit because … “this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.”

Except for the innocent unborn apparently.

Honestly, who writes this bleeping garbage? He probably doesn’t even understand it most of the time. His statement actually ended up being one of a pro-life nature, and he probably doesn’t even realize it. Absolutely unreal.

From pro-abortion to pro-life: My #MarchForLife thoughts on #RoeAt41

(reposted from last year)

First, I’d like to say that I hate that the anniversary of this decison, which gave women the ‘right’ to terminate their pregnancy(ies), is on my birthday.

Second, abortion is an issue I find hard to talk about – not because I’m afraid to talk about it (I got over that long ago) but because it is an incredibly painful issue for me to discuss. Not that I’m alone in that; I’m sure it’s tough for a lot of people, mainly male and female pro-lifers, to discuss because of the moral issues, the visual images we’ve all seen of aborted babies, and the deep emotional commitment pro-lifers have towards saving the lives of the unborn. The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, having been on the ‘other side’ of the issue at one time helps me, I think, in being able to give a more understandable and (hopefully) believable insight into the mind of someone who is (in my case once was) pro-abortion, but before I get started, I’d like to acknowledge that I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but the people I most often debate the issue with are those who are militant and unreasonable, and who make easily debunkable arguments, which I’ll explain in depth below.

The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use Photo courtesy of Kurt Rogers/SF Chronicle the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life – a human life – where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.

The attempt at reshaping the debate by using less inflammatory words is a common tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. Oftentimes when debating abortion I’ll come across a staunch abortion advocate who will insist that it’s not a baby in a pregnant woman’s womb but a “blob of tissue” or “parasite” or “leech.” I wrote this last October regarding the changing of terms we use when discussing unborn babies or humans in a PVS, and I think it’s worth repeating today:

Viewing unborn children as a parasites is very similar to viewing patients in a persistent vegetative state as a vegetables. It’s a way to take the human aspect of the issue out of the equation. When you don’t view something as a human, it’s easier to justify your support of taking its life. Dr. Yacov Tabak, who helped provide the best care for his wife Marsi, who was diagnosed as being in a PVS in 1997, explains:

Dr. Tabak couldn’t bear the term “vegetable” when it was first presented to him, and since the Terri Schiavo ruling, says that some in the medical community have shown an ulterior, ugly side regarding this appellation. “There is a medical agenda with this term” Dr. Tabak contends. “It’s very difficult to get emotionally involved with a vegetable. To have a relationship with a carrot goes against human nature.

And to have a relationship with a ‘parasite’ goes against human nature, too. Viewing an unborn child as a mere pesky parasite makes it sound, to pro-abortionists, so much more ‘justifiable’ to terminate.

There are conflicting studies out there which show on one hand that ‘most’ women who have abortions are not emotionally scarred by it and feel relieved once it’s done, while others show that having an abortion scars a woman for life, some more so than others. The truth is somewhere in between, but make no mistake about it, the decision to have an abortion is not one that most women make in a snap. They think about it and agonize over it, and there’s a reason they agonize over it: because deep inside, they know it’s wrong. Last October, I blogged about a hospital in the UK that was discovered to have thrown aborted babies into the same incinerator they used to get rid of trash, which outraged not only pro-life groups, but some of the women who had abortions there, who thought it was a horrible way for their baby to be dispensed with, which tells you about how torn women who have abortions are between doing what’s right (keeping the child) versus doing what is convenient (aborting them) and the guilt which eats at them later. Women are reassured prior to the abortion that their unborn child will be buried or dispensed of ‘with dignity’ but why worry about the dignity of the child when you didn’t want it to begin with? If you’ve made the choice to abort your child, you have little room to complain when you find out how it’s been disposed of, but all the same the thought that women could be horrified to find out something like that happened to their unborn baby after they aborted it shows that they know deep down that what they did was wrong to begin with.

The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life – specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life – they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued state-funded abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system. When pro-abortionists say they don’t want the government involved in your sex life, what they’re really saying is they don’t want the government telling you that if you choose to be sexually irresponsible with your body, that there can be serious consequences for your behavior. What they want the government to do is to essentially condone your behavior by paying for your abortion, or paying for your child to be able to eat and have a roof over his head.

Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not – I repeat – not responsible to routinely engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website:

Against Abortion? Wear a Condom, Dude! $2.00

[…]

Against Abortion? Have a Vasectomy! $2.00

[…]

Not Every Sperm Needs a Name $2.00

These hypocrites also have the nerve to claim that they are pro-family! I don’t think I have to explain the absurdity of such an argument.

Also, you’ll find that most staunch pro-abortionists are the same people who will chain themselves to a tree in order to protect it or launch a campaign to ‘save the whales’ – it’s bizarre that they put more importance on life that is not human than life which is.

Photo of 10 week old baby courtesy of David Barlow/National Geographic's In the Womb seriesProbably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because every single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’

President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.

My hope is that anyone who reads this and who considers themselves pro-abortion will revisit and reconsider why they believe in the ‘right’ to abort a child. I know people can change their views on abortion: I certainly did, and I don’t regret it for a minute. There is a lot of hypocrisy and senselessness involved in pro-abortion arguments. I know, because I used to make them.

More: Let’s take a look at a typical method of abortion, known as the D&E abortion, as described by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. This is what they describe as the ‘safest’ method of abortion and they perform them on unborn babies up to 18.6 weeks gestation (emphasis added):

You return to clinic on the day of your procedure. Before the procedure is started, a needle will be inserted in your vein and will stay there during the time you are in the clinic. Once the needle is in place, all the medications that you need will be given through it. These medications may include drugs to help you relax and reduce discomfort.

If used, the gauze and dilators will be removed. The doctor will give you a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) in your cervix, which will make the procedure more comfortable. The opening of the uterus may need to be stretched more, which will be done gradually with a series of narrow instruments called dilators, each a little larger than the one before. When the cervix is open wide enough, a plastic tube will be inserted into the uterus and is connected to a suction machine. The content of the uterus will then be removed by a combination of suction and instruments, usually taking 5-15 minutes. During and after the procedure, you may feel cramping as the uterus shrinks down to its normal size. The doctor then may do a final check with a spoon shaped instrument called a curette. Later, the doctor will examine the pregnancy tissue to check whether it has been removed completely.

Isn’t it sick the way they describe what’s in the uterus as the “contents” of the uterus or “pregnancy tissue”, rather than a fetus? This is what a fetus at 18 weeks gestation looks like (more here). Some “blob of tissue”!

Prior/Related:

“Dissident feminist” Paglia rips the cultural war on boys

Camille Paglia

Wrong on many things, but right on on the culture wars & modern-day feminist hacks.

Though there are many areas of disagreement, probably the area where I find the strongest agreement with self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia is in her consistent dissection of modern-day “feminism”, our politically correct culture and how it has deliberately and effectively neutered a generation or more of young men. Wall Street Journal’s Weekend Interview features Paglia, and – as usual – she had a lot to say on the issue (via Memeorandum):

Ms. Paglia argues that the softening of modern American society begins as early as kindergarten. “Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It’s oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys,” she says, pointing to the most obvious example: the way many schools have cut recess. “They’re making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters.”

She is not the first to make this argument, as Ms. Paglia readily notes. Fellow feminist Christina Hoff Sommers has written about the “war against boys” for more than a decade. The notion was once met with derision, but now data back it up: Almost one in five high-school-age boys has been diagnosed with ADHD, boys get worse grades than girls and are less likely to go to college.

Ms. Paglia observes this phenomenon up close with her 11-year-old son, Lucien, whom she is raising with her ex-partner, Alison Maddex, an artist and public-school teacher who lives 2 miles away. She sees the tacit elevation of “female values”—such as sensitivity, socialization and cooperation—as the main aim of teachers, rather than fostering creative energy and teaching hard geographical and historical facts.

By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. “This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness.” The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything. . . . They understand the agenda.” In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

Politically correct, inadequate education, along with the decline of America’s brawny industrial base, leaves many men with “no models of manhood,” she says. “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.” The only place you can hear what men really feel these days, she claims, is on sports radio. No surprise, she is an avid listener. The energy and enthusiasm “inspires me as a writer,” she says, adding: “If we had to go to war,” the callers “are the men that would save the nation.”

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Tweet of the Day: @WendyDavisTexas vows to make investing in TX kids “first priority”

Wendy Davis campaign

Only born children matter to Wendy Davis –
not the unborn.

Wow. Not this again. Yeah:


Sure you will, Senator Davis … just as long as they’re fortunate enough to make it past the viability point while still in their mother’s womb, right?

Twitchy Team documented some great responses to the TX Governor-wannabe’s absurd assertion. You can read them here.

‘Feminist’ tool @AmandaMarcotte: “Taking antibiotics terminates more life than an abortion”

Ok. So this was said:


For liberals reading this blog thinking that “context” might make this sound better, um, no – it doesn’t. Click here and scroll for what I wish I could describe as “comedy gold”, but what instead in reality are the deluded, warped comments of an extraordinarily sad, bitter, unhinged, bigoted woman who is convinced men are the devil and that conservative women who don’t fall in line with her extremist belief system are nothing more than slaves to ‘religionism’ and patriarchy (sound familiar?). Twitchy.com documented reactions to her comments and some of her exchanges with shocked readers to who she is completely and predictably unapologetic.

There’s nothing that can be said about her at this point that hasn’t already been said over and over again – including by yours truly:


As Twitchy indicated, she’s depraved – to say the least. All you can really do going forward is to pray for her that she one day seeks help. She really needs it.

Amanda Marcotte

”Feminist” Amanda Marcotte:
A ‘vagina demagogue’ in the extreme.

Belated “Happy Birth Control Day” wishes!

Now, ladies, you can “thank” Obamacare for your ability to get “free” BC before you decide to “hook-up” with that guy on campus you just met like 15 seconds ago. Woohoo!


The above, BTW, isn’t an official government account but instead run by people who want to make sure women in particular are “thankful” for the passage of Obamacare because of its mandate that insurers offer “free” birth control coverage. Emily Miller the Washington Times reports:

A second ad showing a young woman holding a pack of birth control pills gives the appearance she is possible drunk and at a party. “Ali” is wearing a black, one shoulder, silky dress, bare arms and legs and high heels. She is leaning against a cutout of actor Ryan Gossling — a takeoff of the popular meme “Hey Girl.”

The copy reads from the male actor’s point of view: “You’re excited about easy access to birth control and I’m excited about getting to know you.”

[…]

The latest ads are part of a marketing campaign from Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education that are a takeoff of the “Got Milk?” ads that instead say “Got Obamacare?” These groups first went after young men with ads showing them doing keg stands and binge drinking.

Liberal groups paying for marketing campaigns to target young people to buy health insurance is to be expected. The whole Obamacare scheme will only work if young, healthy people get into the system so that the government can hand out subsidies to the uninsured.

But treating young women like cheap sluts who don’t care about their health or well being other than getting cheap birth control pills to have sex with strange men is offensive. These ads should be taken down.

You can see the other “Thanks Obamacare” ads here. Make sure not to miss the one about “Brosurance” (scroll). America is raising a generation of narcissistic dum dums, I’m afraid to say. :-?

Related: Via Think Progress – ‘Thanks, Birth Control’ Day Wants To Remind Americans How Modern Contraception Has Changed The World

Hook-up culture

”Thank goodness for ‘free’ BC!”

Shock: College hook-up culture brings far more “benefits” for men than women

Hook-up culture

Just say no … to the hook-up culture.

College Fix associate editor Jennifer Kabbany writes about a New York Times report on the “inequality” of the, um, “quality” of the hook-up culture for college women:

The infamous college campus hook-up culture celebrated by feminists suggests female students love casual, no-strings-attached sex, and enjoy one-night stands without guilt, shame or regret.

Oh yeah – then why aren’t they having orgasms when they do?

Research involving 600 college students … found that women were twice as likely to reach orgasm from intercourse or oral sex in serious relationships as in hookups,” the New York Times reported Monday. The factoid was couched in a longer article titled “In Hook-Ups, Inequality Still Reigns.”

“Many young women … are finding that casual sex does not bring the physical pleasure that men more often experience,” the Times reports. “New research suggests why: Women are less likely to have orgasms during uncommitted sexual encounters than in serious relationships. At the same time, researchers say that young women are becoming equal partners in the hookup culture, often just as willing as young men to venture into sexual relationships without emotional ties.”

The article goes on to cite another study which looked at 24,000 students at 21 colleges over five years that found “about 40 percent of women had an orgasm during their last hookup involving intercourse, while 80 percent of men did.”

The Times’ report interviewed several people who had all sorts of ideas as to what’s going wrong in the bedroom, such as that young men don’t care about pleasing a women they see casually, and the twosome doesn’t know each other well enough to know how to get each other off. Predictably, it goes on to quote sources who say sex without orgasms is fine for women seeking to scratch that carnal itch – that “mediocre sex” is the price women pay for freedom.

But the truth is women engaged in casual sex don’t reach orgasm because – on some level – they know they’re selling themselves short. They’re giving away their ace in the hole, pardon the pun, to some guy who barely knows their name and is likely too drunk to remember it in the morning. They’re offering themselves to a man who has committed nothing to them, cares nothing for them.

This is “sexual freedom”? No thank you. Give me emotional commitment over a “hook-up” any day.  It’s a lot more fulfilling and rewarding – and not merely in terms of just the physical aspects.    Young women constantly sell themselves – and their ability to have a nurturing, loving, sustaining, more equal relationship – short in this regard (frankly, men do, too).  And it hurts their ability to trust in the long run. But it’s what rules in pop culture, it’s the “in” thing to do.  It’s “rebellious”, it’s a “rite of passage”  – and for women, it’s the ultimate sign of “non-conformity” against the values their parents tried to instill in them when they were growing up.

Isn’t it far more grown up and, dare I say “rebellious”,  to resist the temptation to be like everyone else and to NOT do what everyone else is doing? Just askin.’

From the hate mail stack: Angry moonbat loses it over uncomfortable Wendy Davis truths

Tinfoil Hat Area

Proceed with caution …

Someone named “Fiftycal” doesn’t care much for the truth when it comes to the inhumane procedure of abortion and TX Senator Wendy Davis’ record on it:

Ever heard of the Constitution? Supreme Court? Don’t like “abortion”? then get a Constitutional Amendment to “ban” it. Until then, STFU. Why is it that some snake handling religious superstitionists think it is THEIR BUSINESS what someone else does with their body? I am a CONSERVATIVE that wants LESS GOVERNMENT, not a “christian” that wants less government EXCEPT where I want MORE GOVERNMENT. So tell me snake handlers, which form of enforcement would you have if “abortion” was illegal? Soviet style or Chinese style? Would you make miscarriages murder? The one bit of truth the leftists have is the “war on women” meme. And Abbott will waste millions on the unconstitutional “anti-abortion” mess passed by the bible thumpers in the last session.

“Tolerant” far leftists and their fondness for a “new tone” type of dialogue strike again. Alert President Unicorn and the Civility Police! ;)

.@WendyDavisTexas continues to run away from her abortion record: “I am #prolife”

Wendy Davis' shoes

These shoes were made for runnin’ … away from your pro-abortion record? Photo via Dallas News.

As has been previously reported, feminista darling-turned candidate for Texas governor Wendy Davis is running away as fast as she can from her abortion record.  Her “introduction” campaign video to the state of Texas last month didn’t mention the word abortion nor talk about the issue once, in spite of the fact that her rise to national prominence is based SOLELY on that one issue.

Yesterday in Brownsville, TX, the TX state senator took another giant leap away from her staunch abortion advocacy record by actually claiming that she – the one who tried to filibuster a bill that would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks – was pro-life.  Via the Valley Morning Star (bolded emphasis added by me):

But while in Brownville Tuesday, Davis revealed her campaign for governor isn’t based on her abortion filibuster and brightly colored shoes.

Her campaign stop at the University of Texas at Brownsville centered on a lesser-known filibuster of hers: one she conducted in 2011 in opposition to a budget that tried to cut $4 billion from public education.

Education, she said, was crucial to the fulfillment of what she called Texas’ promise.

“If you work hard you can become anything you desire to be in a place like Texas,” she said. “That promise was one that my state delivered to me when I was young, but the promise today really has been broken.”

Indeed, it has, ironically enough by pro-choice politicos like Wendy Davis who are perfectly ok with unborn children having the very opportunities she and her fellow Texans were given from the moment they were born away from them: The chance to be born and to have the opportunity to “become anything you desire to be.”

Continuing on:

Davis said her approach to job growth differs from the Republican plan just as her approach toward the goal of having zero abortions in Texas differs, characterizing herself as a reluctant participant in the abortion debate.

“The battle over reproductive rights and women’s health care that was waged on June 25 was not a battle I chose,” she said. “When I believe women’s health is in danger, I’m going to stand and fight to protect that.”

[…]

“This isn’t about protecting abortion. It’s about protecting women,” she said. “It’s about trusting women to make good decisions for themselves and empowering them with the tools to do that.”

[…]

“(I’m) a woman who wants desperately for others who are coming up in poverty to receive the same kind of partnership from the state that I once received so that they too can become a part of the success of Texas,” she said.

Davis suggested that her views on abortion access do not mean she does not care about life.

I am pro-life,” she said, borrowing from the label anti-abortion activists assign themselves. “I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.

Only after they are born, though – not before. And that’s the problem, Ms. Davis. The unborn are people worth fighting for, too.

Related:  Wendy Davis sued her hometown newspaper (and Disney) for WHAT?

Post-20 week abortion ban in Texas still stands – for now

Texas State Senator State Senator Bob Deuell

Republican State Senator Bob Deuell, who set two pairs of infant shoes on the counter, speaks during a July TX senate hearing on a proposed abortion bill in Austin. Photo via Mike Stone / Reuters

Some news reports erroneously reported early on today that HB 2 – the hotly debated Texas abortion law pro-abortion State Senator Wendy Davis (now a gubernatorial candidate) attempted to filibuster back in June – had been “blocked” in its entirety by a federal judge, leading to a lot of  misinformation being spread initially about the ruling … including by yours truly on social media.   While it’s true that parts of the bill HAVE been blocked for the time being, the post-20 week ban on abortions, which is set to take effect tomorrow, has not been blocked as of yet and wasn’t challenged in this case.  Via the Austin American-Statesman (hat tip):

A federal judge on Monday barred Texas from enforcing a key provision of an abortion law that was to take effect Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel’s opinion found that a provision requiring abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital “does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman’s health.”

Yeakel also barred Texas from enforcing a provision regulating the dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs for “women for whom surgical abortion is, in the sound medical opinion of their treating physician, a significant health risk.” However, he allowed other parts of the provision, including a requirement for one extra office visit, to stand.

[…]

Abortion providers also complained that the law did not give them enough time. Hospitals have 170 days to rule on a request for privileges, but the law was to go into effect 90 days after the special legislative session ended in July.

In his ruling, Yeakel said the rule “places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her.”

Gov. Rick Perry said state officials will continue efforts to enact HB 2.

[…]

The case next heads to federal appeals court, where abortion-related Texas laws have recently prevailed:

[…]

One provision of the law, a ban on abortions at 20 weeks post-fertilization, was not challenged and will take effect Tuesday. The limit, with exceptions if the mother’s life is in danger and in cases of severe fetal abnormality, is four weeks earlier than current law.

Another HB 2 provision, requiring abortion clinics meet the same requirements as day surgery centers, does not take effect until Sept. 1, 2014 and is expected to be challenged in court in the future.

It’s anticipated that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, also running for Governor, will file an emergency appeal on the ruling with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans,