Mississippi Burning Pt. 2--New Legal Concept Continues to Unfold

(Note: In reviewing this piece, I noticed that I might have inadvertently expressed a few thoughts that border on irony, and perhaps, in rare instances, almost imperceptibly cross into the realm of sarcasm. In the interest of maintaining my standards of political correctness, I promise I will never do it again.)

Last week, a GOP-appointed federal judge in Mississippi issued a temporary restraining order on July 1 to protect the last surviving (admitted) abortion facility in the state from being shut down for noncompliance with an amendment to Mississippi's existing abortion law.

Judge Daniel P. Jordan III issued the restraining order to delay implementation of the new law until July 11, when he would hold a hearing to determine whether he would block the law for a longer period. Last week, he wrote in his order halting enforcement of the law:

Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow[.] ... [The Jackson Women's Health Organization is] the only regular provider of abortions in Mississippi, and as of the Act's effective date, JWHO cannot comply with its requirements.

The "legal precedent" to which Judge Jordan referred? He continued:

Plaintiffs have offered evidence -- including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers -- that the Act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted. (Emphasis mine.)

So, to recap: there is a legal case somewhere stating that comments made by legislators who pass a law supersede the text of the law. Especially when "significant legislative and executive officers" make those comments. I suppose the insignificant legislators and executive officers have all been mute on the subject.

This is the text of HB1390 -- the heinous, Taliban-like, draconian law passed by the pickup-driving, racist buffoons elected by the great unwashed masses in Mississippi, who clearly want all women to die:

An Act to Amend Section 41-75-1, Mississippi Code Of 1972, to require that all Physicians who perform abortions in abortion facilities must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and must be Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology. (Emphasis mine).

Judge Jordan III, who, in his intense study of the Constitution, women's health, and the legal precedent to which he referred (reportedly located in the United Nations' Code of Justice, Telepathy, and Just Making Things Seem Right), was incommunicado when another of our nation's leading legal thinkers, President Barack Hussein Obama II issued another edict recently:

Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

On July 11, again in direct violation of the president's clear and present wisdom, Judge Jordan III took an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" by determining that the restraining order would be extended until he can review how the Mississippi Department of Health will enforce the new laws.

I am totally confused. He originally halted the state's enforcement of the law because some people (not just regular people, mind you, but significant legislators) made some comments revealing their true, ultra-secret purpose for passing the law. But now the state cannot enforce the law until he reviews how they are going to enforce the law?

What happened to that first legal precedent? Is there now another one? I grew up in Mississippi, so as a typical ignorant Southerner, I suppose I am not capable of understanding complex legal logic even when it slaps me in the face.

Confirming the sound legal judgment exhibited in issuance of the restraining order and subsequent extension, another freedom-loving, woman-protecting Constitution-adherent (Amelia McGowan, staff attorney with the ACLU) chimed in:

It's unconstitutional, frankly.

Overwhelming. It is as though we have heard utterances of the legal gods.

After reading Roe v. Wade again, it is clear from Justice Blackmun's opinion that the new Mississippi amendment is unconstitutional, frankly. It is diametrically opposed to the core issue of the ruling -- namely, that Roe believed that her constitutional rights were violated because she could not have an abortion in a safe environment, performed by a competent physician:

Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.

The inherent brutality of Mississippi's antiquated, oppressive law requiring abortionists to be competent physicians if they perform this procedure -- even to the point of being Board Certified OB/GYNs- is clearly in violation of any reading of Roe v. Wade, as evidenced above.   Adding further indignities to all women everywhere is the legislature's hare-brained idea that abortionists who commit this "safe, legal, and rare" invasive procedure to dismember or chemically burn the baby while inside the mother's womb should be able to provide follow-up care if hospitalization is necessary.  How could there ever be complications?

An additional shocking revelation was made that day, though not by the judge, the attorneys, or anyone considered a constitutional or legal expert. W. Martin "Marty" Wiseman, Ph.D., a political science professor at Mississippi State University, said this regarding the new law:

All of that is wrapped in that cloak of conservative religion. When you are in this state, you cannot separate an issue from religion. The normal rationale used in other states doesn't fly here. You'll find very few legislators -- regardless of whether they are white, black, Democrat or Republican -- who will say "I'm pro-abortion."

W. Marty, applying innovative code-breaking skills, revealed that religion is really, really, really the ultra-secret motive behind this new law passed by this most backward of states that does not use a "normal rationale" like all the other states. Only seven other states require hospital-admitting privileges for physicians who commit infanticide, and not one of them requires that the abortionists be Board Certified OB/GYNs. 

How fortunate for us that Professor Wiseman (surely that name is not a coincidence?) recognizes these warning signs of encroaching theocracy. Most assuredly, this could not possibly be some wild conspiracy theory, because he is a Political Science Professor -- and his picture reveals no Ron Paul buttons or tinfoil hats.

After all, how could requiring abortionists to be Board Certified as OB/GYNs--experts in "women's reproductive issues"-- and have admitting privileges at a local hospital be anything but a religiously motivated expression of hatred toward women?

According to CNN.com, Diane Derzis (owner of the Jackson Women's Health Organization) said she believes that the real intent of the newly elected Republican majority was to end abortion in the state, not to improve women's health care:

I love that it's white old men making those statements. This is not about safety. This is about politics, and politics do not need to be in our uterus.

She must be forgetting that the only reason her infanticide center is open at all is because seven "white old men" put the politics "in her uterus" in January of 1973.

Perhaps Dr. W. Marty can help her with sentence structure, because even though she is much more enlightened, her advocates probably want to ensure she cannot be mistaken for a typical Mississippian -- ignorant, slow-talking, Constitution-shredding racist homophobe women-hating religious fanatic.

No worries, though. The new law does not apply to abortionists who commit fewer than ten abortions per month and fewer than a hundred per year.

These particular infanticidists, who unfortunately do not get to practice their skills very often, are not required by the state to be certified as women's health specialists or to have hospital admitting privileges.  

But do not be concerned by the potential damage to their self-esteem, which inevitably results by not being certified experts in "women's reproductive health" -- they are not required to report any information about their abortions to the state.  I guess they are on the honor system to keep an accurate account of the infanticides they commit.

What a relief!




Originally Published: American Thinker, July 14, 2012

Will Mississippi Become an Abortion-Free State?

July 7, 2012

Much like the announcement of a last-minute stay of execution for a convicted murderer/rapist/pedophile, a terrorist who did not have his rights read to him, or any Republican gaffe, the news flashed rapidly across the country this week that the last remaining abortion facility in the State of Mississippi was saved. Saved from ignorant, anti-choice crusaders who enacted an anti-constitution, woman-hostile new statute, which, if implemented, would set back the cause of women's reproductive health by at least a couple of millennia.  

The loving, tolerant, pro-choice, pro-woman crowd breathed a collective sigh of relief as the enforcement of the draconian measure drafted and passed by those stupid Southerners was delayed.

The hero of this scenario, U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III, in an innovative Roberts-like display of jurisprudence, ruled that the public comments of supporters of the bill outweigh the actual text of the law. Judge Jordan, apparently, is unfamiliar with the recent admonishment by the president to unelected federal judges that they should not take the unprecedented step of setting aside laws passed by a duly elected legislature.

The new requirement under this "inhumane" law:

... that all physicians who perform abortions in an abortion facility must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and must be Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

According to Nancy Northrup, CEO of The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, who helped sponsor the legal challenge to Mississippi's new amendment to their existing law:

Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years. The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi," Northup said. "Their hostility toward women, reproductive health care providers, and the rights of both would unquestionably put the lives and health of countless women at risk of grave harm.

It would seem to me -- remember, I am just an ignorant Southern layman and not a medical professional -- that there would be inherently more danger in a woman's reproductive health procedure that is not performed by someone who is Board Certified in women's reproductive health. Having a doctor with admitting privileges at local hospitals might be an additional safety feature in the event that one of those "safe, legal, and rare" procedures ends with complications.

In 2010, according to the latest information available from the State Health Department, there were 2,297 infanticides committed by these reproductive health care providers at the Jackson Women's Health Clinic.

According to their posted business hours (and assuming they are closed on national holidays), they are open for business about 2,400 hours per year. That means that in 2010, every 62 minutes they were open, another baby was dismembered and then killed.

These figures do not include facilities where fewer than ten abortions per month, or fewer than 100 per year, are carried out -- those are not considered by the state to be abortion facilities, and their infanticides are not required to be reported. The new law does not apply to them -- only to those "who perform abortions in abortion facilities." These figures also do not include abortions committed in neighboring states -- which are geographically closer to 51% of the population.

The clinic says if it closes, most women would have to go out of state to terminate a pregnancy - something that could create financial problems for people in one of the poorest states in the nation. From Jackson, it is about a 200-mile drive to clinics in New Orleans; Mobile, Ala.; or Memphis, Tenn.

While it is true that Jackson is about 200 miles from each of these cities, only 14% of the state's 2,978,512 population lives in Jackson. Fifty-one percent of the population lives closer to these other cities than to Jackson. As it turns out, Mississippi women -- or the majority of them -- will not be burdened if the Jackson clinic closes. Most women desiring to terminate their unexpected or otherwise inconvenient children should not be too inconvenienced, hopefully.

It took only about 15 minutes to research the census information for Mississippi, which I referenced in the previous paragraph. I was shocked, shocked to see that these demographics and simple geography were omitted in every story I read about this event. The vast right-wing conspiracy must have used The Force to cloud the minds of all those "journalists."

To summarize Mississippi's new law: The State requires that only abortionists committing more than ten child terminations per month, or 100+  per year, actually be board certified as women's reproductive health experts.   In addition, if there are complications from abortions committed in abortion facilities which require subsequent hospitalization, those abortionists must have admitting privileges to local hospitals.    

Abortionists terminating fewer than ten children per month or fewer than 100 per year are not required to be Board Certified as OB/GYNs -- women's health experts -- nor must they have hospital-admitting privileges. Moreover, those abortionists do not have to report the terminations they carry out.

I suppose that by this weird logic, the less one performs a procedure, the greater his/her skills? And less expertise translates into the need for less supervision and reporting requirements?

Please pardon my layman's ignorance, but if that is logical, I just cannot my simple mind around it.

With the impending full implementation of Obamacare, our tax dollars will continue to increasingly provide aid and comfort for this growing genocide. The engineers of this monstrous movement care little for the health of women, especially poor minority women. 

Mississippi's legislature passed a law that, as written, would guarantee increased patient safety for a dangerous elective surgical procedure. How can women "choose" to trust a movement that actively tries to restrict quality control and accountability for providers?

In spite of what the intentions of its supporters may have been, what matters is what the law actually says.

When I consider this and other recent rulings by some of our judges, I am reminded of the words of an aristocrat who lived from about 720 to 702 B.C. in what was once called Edom, now part of Jordan. His name was Isaiah. He was widely known for his oratory, and for speaking truth to power. This is what he said about elitist legislators and judges who took advantage of the poor and oppressed in his time:

Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of my people of their rights, so that widows may be their spoil and that they may plunder the orphans.

Fifty-three million abortions since 1972.   Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger, whose ardent belief in the existence of a master race led to their pioneering work in "reproductive health services," are dancing a jig in Hell over the prevented abortion of their lovechild by this GOP-appointed Judge in Mississippi.

(Originally published July 7, 2012, The American Thinker)