PUBLISHED: 11:36 PM 27 Nov 2017
UPDATED: 10:43 PM 5 Dec 2017

Federal Judge Issues Insane Ruling As Texas Law Struck Down, Liberals Celebrate Victory

Texas’s Attorney General (AG), Ken Paxton, is one of the most outspoken critics of Judge Lee Yeakel’s recent decision to strike down a state law prohibiting doctors from performing dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions (pictured above).

Texas’s Attorney General (AG), Ken Paxton, is one of the most outspoken critics of Judge Lee Yeakel’s recent decision to strike down a state law prohibiting doctors from performing dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions (pictured above).

Earlier this year, the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott (R), signed a bill into law banning a particularly barbaric abortion procedure in an attempt to protect the dignity of unborn children. Unfortunately, the legislation was subsequently challenged in court and ultimately struck down by a federal judge, prompting many supporters of abortion to celebrate.

Specifically, Judge Lee Yeakel, a federal judge with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, ruled earlier this month that a state law prohibiting doctors from performing dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions is unconstitutional. As a consequence of this ruling, unborn babies across the state are now at risk of being savagely ripped apart while being aborted. This is because of the fact that a D&E procedure, otherwise known as a “dismemberment abortion,” is a second-trimester abortion technique that essentially involves using medical forceps to rip fetuses, sometimes limb from limb, out of their mothers.

Judge Lee Yeakel, a federal judge with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

According to Judge Yeakel, such a cruel and unusual procedure must not be prohibited because it’s one of the easiest methods available. “The State’s valid interest in promoting respect for the life of the unborn, although legitimate, is not sufficient to justify such a substantial obstacle to the constitutionally protected right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability,” reasoned Yeakel in his decision.

“That a woman may make the decision to have an abortion before a fetus may survive outside her womb is solely and exclusively the woman’s decision. The power to make this decision is her right,” he explained, adding, “requiring a woman to undergo an unwanted, risky, invasive, and experimental procedure in exchange for exercising her right to choose an abortion, substantially burdens that right.”

To clarify, he stated, “the evidence before the court is graphic and distasteful…[but it’s] germane only to the state’s interest in the dignity of fetal life and is weighed on the state’s side of the scale,” noting, “it does not remove weight from the woman’s side. And it does not add weight to tip the balance in the state’s favor.”

But clearly, his reasoning is utterly absurd. It doesn’t matter if it’s the easiest method available if it involves cruel and unusual punishment. That would be like advocating for cruel and unusual forms of punishment for prisoners simply because they’re easier alternatives. This type of reasoning, however, hasn’t withstood scrutiny by the Supreme Court. If such reasoning is unconstitutional when it comes to executing prisoners, then it follows that it’s also unconstitutional when it comes to executing the unborn.

Fortunately, Texas’s Attorney General (AG), Ken Paxton, understands this. Following Judge Yeakel’s decision, he released a statement vowing to appeal.

“We will defend Senate Bill 8 all the way to the US Supreme Court, if necessary,” promised Paxton in the statement. “During a five-day trial this month in a district court, we created a record unlike any other in exposing the horrors of dismemberment abortions,” he continued, adding, “no just society should tolerate the tearing of living human beings to pieces.”

Texas’s Attorney General (AG), Ken Paxton.

Despite Paxton’s promise to appeal, many on the left celebrated Yeakel’s decision. For instance, on Twitter, Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, tweeted, “Grateful that another court agrees politics should never tie the hands of doctors or bar women from safe medical care — in Texas or anywhere else.

Sadly, Texas is not the only state to have a law prohibiting D&E abortions struck down. Several weeks ago, a similar law was also struck down in Alabama.

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.

“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,” 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.

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.”

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