As previously discussed at Ricochet, there have been several recent federal court decisions regarding the constitutionality of new laws that require abortionists to gain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. One of these cases is wending its way to the Supreme Court and we’re likely to see a decision on it next year.

I’ve generally been skeptical of this legislation, as the genuine health and safety concerns seemed to take a back seat to finding new means of restricting abortion. Now, I want abortion to be more restricted than it is because I think abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason-at-any-time is monstrous, but I also have a gut feeling that these laws were masking that (legitimate) motivation behind a screen of health concerns. On the other hand, I would never have imagined that it was possible for something like Kermit Gosnell’s clinic to exist, and I also assume that any stance taken by Planned Parenthood is mendacious and wicked until proven otherwise, so there was that to account for.

With all this in mind, I decided to read the most recent of these decisions, this one regarding a small part of an anti-abortion law passed in Wisconsin in the wake of the Gosnell case. The relevant portions under review concerned the passage that required abortion providers to gain “admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the location where the abortion is to be performed” within two days of the law’s passage. The process for gaining admitting privileges is lengthy and capricious, and the two days in question were a Saturday and Sunday. The timing was so egregious that the court put a unanimous injunction against this particular provision’s enforcement in order to give abortionists time to meet the new requirement. This case then reviewed whether the injunction should be lifted or made permanent. The majority’s decision by Judge Richard Posner argued that it should be permanent, while Judge Daniel Manion dissented.