TOLEDO, oh — Ohio pro-lifers have appealed to the Supreme Court in the latest attempt to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare.
The Supreme Court agreed on March 16 to hear an appeal of a ruling that has kept a Toledo abortion clinic’s doors open, despite a supposedly pro-life law aimed at forcing it to adhere to health care standards.
Capital Care Clinic was ordered to close in 2014 by the Ohio Department of Health after it failed to obtain an emergency transfer agreement with a local hospital.
A Lucas County Common Pleas judge ruled that the requirement created an undue burden by forcing women who wanted to kill their children to drive to Cleveland, Columbus, or Detroit to do so. That ruling, which prevented the Ohio Department of Health from enforcing its order for the clinic to close, was later upheld by the 6th District Court of Appeals, prompting advocates of the law to take the case to a higher court.
Pro-lifers have defended the law by arguing that it is not really an anti-abortion law, and will not hamper a woman’s ability to have her children killed.
“At the hospitals here in Toledo, regrettably, the top-notch physicians do not typically perform abortions,” said Ed Sitter, Director of Greater Toledo Right to Life. “So you don’t have your best doctors doing this procedure and as a result, a lot of hospitals do not want to risk the liability of entering into this agreement with abortion clinics.”
Sitter acknowledged that this law is not intended to stop the killing of children, but only to make sure that the killing centers meet the same standards as other non-emergency medical facilities.
“One of the things that was spun in the press that was a total fabrication, is that this is some law that was passed to target abortion clinics and stop them from practicing what they do,” he said. “This law has been in effect for decades and applies to all ambulatory surgical facilities. The other side champions rare, safe, abortions. Why wouldn’t you want to have the same medical standards for that procedure as you do for any other outpatient surgery?”
Sitter argued that the law would not place any undue burden on women, as it would leave them with readily available access to multiple “safer” child sacrifice centers. “In the strictest sense of the word, it is not a pro-life bill,” he told reporters. However, Sitter also opined that the law may prolong the decision-making period, allowing women to make “fully informed” decisions, and so reduce the number of abortions in that way.
Abolish Abortion Ohio representative Tony Dipane agreed that the law is not an anti-abortion law, saying, “This is standard Ohio Pro-Life regulation. They pass a law to look like they are doing something, but all they’ve done is continue to choose who lives and who dies. They’re Pro-Choice with regulations.”
“I call it prolife trickery,” added abolitionist Elizabeth House. “Tricks to keep abortion going but seem like they are for life, when in reality they are not.”
Sitter claimed that his ultimate goal is the abolition of abortion, but said he believes the way to accomplish that is through personhood efforts.
Personhood Ohio, however, said they do not support the measure.
“We do not support legislation that says ‘if you jump through these hoops, then you can kill the baby,'” said a Personhood Ohio representative, responding to questions about the bill on social media. “We are a no-compromise organization that only supports measures that will end all abortion.”