TX Supreme Court takes on AbortionThe Texas Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the state's abortion laws yesterday, with 22 plaintiffs, including 20 patients and two physicians, arguing that the medical exceptions in these laws are too narrow to protect individuals with complicated pregnancies. The lawsuit, led by the Center for Reproductive Rights, contends that Texas' abortion bans endanger women facing pregnancy complications. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton vehemently defends the state's abortion laws, seeking the case's dismissal.
The court will consider a temporary injunction that, if applied, would grant doctors greater discretion in performing abortions when a woman's health is at risk or when a fetus has a potentially fatal condition. The outcome could impact the extent of medical exceptions to Texas' abortion bans. The case reflects an ongoing legal battle amid increasing plaintiffs joining to challenge abortion regulations in Texas.
________
The Remnant's Response
We have written before about the creative and deceptive naming of organizations like the "Human Rights Campaign," "People for the American Way," etc., and we can add the "Center for Reproductive Rights" to the list. A more accurate name for the organization would be the Center for Right to Limit Reproduction. The remnant understands that all life is valuable because of the divine imprint the Lord places on every life, irrespective of the effects of the fall on our physical being (Genesis 1:26-27). While it is appropriate to show immense compassion (Colossians 3:12) and sensitivity to parents who receive a negative diagnosis for their unborn or newborn child, the remnant must always advocate for the dignity of the vulnerable child over the fears created by the special needs of their child (Proverbs 31:8-9).
While there are horrible examples where a decision must be made between saving the life of the mother or the life of the child, these rare occasions need not be categorized under the ambiguous term "the health of the mother," which has too often been broadened to allow for the child being killed for numerous nonlife-threatening mental or lessor physical reasons.
In the 1973 opinion of Doe v Bolton, the Supreme Court creatively introduced language that expanded the definition of a "health exception," making it possible for a woman to use the exception for "any reason stated" broadly. Here is yet another example of the seemingly positive words "the health of the mother" being deceptively used to encourage or allow mothers to do things contrary to the design and command of the Creator and thus do the very opposite of creating health in her life (Proverbs 13:15, 1 John 5:3). The enemy of life has long played with words to deceive us and advance the culture of death (Genesis 3:4-5).
The remnant should advocate for the life of both the mother and the child and pray for Supreme Court Justices (1 Timothy 2:1-2) who bear the responsibility of clarifying any exception in order to protect the life of both mother and child. It is the privilege and calling of God’s people to care for both the emotional and physical needs of the mother and for the protection of the child in and out of the womb whenever possible.
