As admitted by both Bill O'Reilly and Eric Bolling, the "fair & balanced" Fox News is unabashedly "pro-life. Its anti-choice bias was clearly shown in its validation of anti-choice opposition to the ACA birth control mandate and advancement of the "pro-life" lie that it covered abortion drugs. During his trial, Fox equated Dr. Gosnell with safe, legal abortion. And in discussing State Sen. Wendy Davis' stand against the draconian TX anti-abortion law, Fox not only smeared Davis, but advanced the "pro-life" lie that the law was reasonable. Now that the Supreme Court has blocked provisions of this bill, the lifers are livid. So who better to Foxsplain the implications of the decision, on the officially "fair & balanced" news show, America Live, than Judge Andrew Napolitano who describes himself as "fiercely pro-life" and who, on Fox, proclaimed that de-funding Planned Parenthood is "courageous." Not surprisingly, Napolitano was neither fair nor balanced - but he did stick with the pro-life script so it was all good...
Today, Bill Hemmer reported the backstory on the SCOTUS decision and noted that "the legal fight is not over." He tossed to Napolitano, Fox's "senior judicial analyst." Napolitano explained that the law required that abortion doctors have admitting privilege, at a local hospital, "in case something goes wrong with the abortion." He said that the "practical effect" was a reduction in the number of facilities that would be able to perform abortions. He provided further information regarding the legal process which resulted in the decision and speculated on what could happen in the future.
When Hemmer asked if this was a question of geography, Napolitano went into full "pro-life" spin. He claimed that this was question of the "credentials" of the abortion doctor and - drum roll please - linked the law to the Gosnell case which was used, by Fox News, to morph what happened in the Gosnell clinic to safe and legal abortion. (Official Fox "news" guy Bret Baier, like Napolitano, linked the TX law to Gosnell) Napolitano got emotional as he spoke of how "babies were dying" and how Gosnell couldn't care for his patients because he didn't have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital - an overly simplistic assertion. After he claimed that the Texas law was a response to this, Napolitano impugned Wendy Davis by reminding viewers that this seemingly reasonable statue was "famously" filibustered by Wendy Davis.
Napolitano predicted the law will be upheld because "the very nature of these laws, to require a higher level of hygiene at the time that the abortion is performed have, generally, been upheld by the Supreme Court."
WHAT NAPOLITANO DIDN'T SAY:
It isn't about "a higher level of hygiene" - it's about preventing women from accessing abortion which, in driving it underground or to Mexico, will hurt women. It will not make abortion, which is less likely to result in complications than dental surgery, safer. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposed the law, issued this statement: "The bills would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, allowing abortions only in surgical clinics and setting a higher standard than for other procedures with similar low risk such as colonoscopy. The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. The risk of complications from abortion is minimal, with less than 0.5% of abortions involving major complications."
Napolitano didn't say that if the law went into effect, the number of Texas clinics would have dropped from 24 to 6. He didn't mention that the law would force nearly a million Texas women to drive more than three hours to obtain an abortion which also requires a waiting period. He didn't mention that abortion doctors won't get admitting privileges at Catholic hospitals or hospitals with Catholics on their board. Because admitting privileges are based on number of patients admitted and so few abortions entail hospital admission, doctors, especially those who fly in from out of state on week-ends, won't get them. Additionally, it is argued that admitting privileges aren't necessary because anyone can be admitted to an emergency room.
But you didn't hear any of that from Judge Napolitano - but then, why would you?!