PUBLISHED: 8:57 PM 31 Oct 2017

Federal Judge Issues Insane Ruling As Abortion Clinics Celebrate, Alabama Law Blocked

Earlier this week, Myron Thompson, a senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, struck down several laws in Alabama regulating abortion clinics because they apparently impose too much of a burden on women (pictured above).

Earlier this week, a federal judge struck down several laws in Alabama regulating abortion clinics because they apparently impose too much of a burden on women (pictured above).

Earlier this week, Myron Thompson, a senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, struck down several laws in Alabama regulating abortion clinics because they apparently impose too much of a burden on women (pictured above).

Earlier this week, a federal judge struck down several laws in Alabama regulating abortion clinics. Apparently, doing so is too much of a burden on women.

Specifically, Myron Thompson, a senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, recently ruled that the state of Alabama cannot ban abortion clinics from operating within 2,000 feet of elementary and middle schools. Thompson also ruled that the state also cannot prohibit abortion clinics from performing “dismemberment abortions,” which is a second-trimester abortion technique that essentially involves using medical forceps to rip fetuses, sometimes limb from limb, out of their mothers.  

Myron Thompson, a senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Myron Thompson, a senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

“The more severe the obstacle a regulation creates, the more robust the government’s justification must be, both in terms of how much benefit the regulation provides towards achieving the State’s interests and in terms of how realistic it is the regulation will actually achieve that benefit,” explained Thompson in his written decision before asserting that he doesn’t believe the government has a strong justification for the law, which he claimed places an “undue burden” on women.

“Here, because…the State’s interests are so attenuated and because…the school-proximity law would place substantial, and even insurmountable, burdens on Alabama  women seeking to exercise their right to a pre-viability abortion, the court concludes that the law does not ‘confer benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that [it] imposes,’” he argued, noting, “the court thus holds that the school-proximity law ‘constitutes an undue burden on abortion access’ and is unconstitutional.”

Judge Thompson recently ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Alabama to ban abortion clinics from operating within 2,000 feet of elementary and middle schools.

Judge Thompson recently ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Alabama to ban abortion clinics from operating within 2,000 feet of elementary and middle schools.

The burden on Alabama women referred to by Thompson has to do with the fact that under the law, two of Alabama’s five abortion clinics would be forced to close. This is especially problematic, according to Thompson, because the two clinics reportedly perform roughly 72% of the state’s abortions.

But clearly, Thompson’s reasoning is completely absurd. Having an abortion clinic relocate further away from a school does not impose a burden on women. It simply ensures that young children are kept as far away from the horrific practice as possible.

After ruling that their law prohibiting abortions from operating near schools is unconstitutional, Thompson then addressed the state’s ban on “dismemberment abortions,” which he also found to be unconstitutional. Specifically, he stated, “the court finds the fetal-demise law effectively terminates the right to abortion for Alabama women at 15 weeks. Because it imposes an undue burden on the right of women in Alabama to obtain a pre-viability abortion, the court holds the fetal-demise law unconstitutional.”

To clarify, he explained that “the fetal-demise law imposes a substantial burden in at least two interacting ways.” First, it “imposes significant health risks on most women who choose to have an abortion by requiring them to undergo a fetal-demise procedure that is unsafe or experimental.” And second, it “makes standard D&E–the only method of second-trimester abortion available in Alabama as a  practical matter–largely unavailable because no safe, non-experimental methods are feasible in the vast majority of cases.”

An image of the horrifying procedure that Thompson has once again allowed can be seen below. (Warning, graphic content):

Judge Thompson recently ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Alabama to ban abortion clinics from performing “dismemberment abortions,” which is a second-trimester abortion technique that essentially involves using medical forceps to rip fetuses, sometimes limb from limb, out of their mothers.

Judge Thompson recently ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Alabama to ban abortion clinics from performing “dismemberment abortions,” which is a second-trimester abortion technique that essentially involves using medical forceps to rip fetuses, sometimes limb from limb, out of their mothers.

Once again, Thompson’s reasoning is utterly ridiculous. He’s basically saying that the state cannot prohibit killing unborn children in cruel and unusual ways because alternatives are either not available, which blatantly violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” This is because, using Thompson’s same reasoning, if there wasn’t a way to execute a prisoner in a way that’s safe or non-experimental, then it would be okay to opt for “cruel and unusual punishment” instead.  

Hopefully, Thompson’s decision is ultimately overturned. Doing so would help protect young children as well as uphold the Eighth Amendment.