Like a lot of pro-lifers, I’m worried about the extreme measures the abortionists and their allies in government are taking in the wake of the downfall of their idol, Roe v. Wade.  But there is one thing that reassures me:  their maneuvers get crazier and crazier – and in the long run, like Roe, are doomed to collapse.

You may recall that, back in May, we gained some ground in our battle against California’s SB 245, which demands that no out-of-pocket costs be imposed for any abortion-related medical services.  Under this law, cost-sharing could and would be charged for childbirth but not for abortion.

We challenged the law on grounds of equal protection and patient privacy.  A California judge allowed our case to go forward, ruling that SB 245 is likely discriminatory and should be assessed according to the highest standard of judicial review – namely, strict scrutiny.

To you and me, such a ruling seems a matter of simple common sense.  Of course a law that explicitly favors abortion over childbirth is discriminatory.  But convincing a judge in California of this simple common sense was a significant victory.  We were aided by case law that the pro-aborts themselves established decades ago.  They wanted to make sure that no one in government would privilege childbirth over child termination.  We just turned the tables on them.

Now we are arguing the case with a welcome degree of confidence.  To drive home our point about the unequal treatment, we pointed out that, under SB 245, a woman who has a pill abortion pays nothing, even if she has complications, but a woman who suffers a miscarriage would be liable for co-pays and cost-sharing for the exact same treatment.

And how did the state reply?

The legal team for the Golden State is arguing that miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion” and is therefore an “abortion-related” service under the law.

It’s a fascinating verbal dodge – but tends to indicate that the state’s pro-abortion attorneys have not read the law that they are defending.  The statute specifically defines abortion as “any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth.”  The state singles out induced abortion as the only kind of abortion especially protected.

The judge, who already viewed the state’s defense of the law as weak, should be aghast at how much weaker it gets with every argument offered.

Life Legal will see this important case through to its end.  And we intend to expose all manifestations of pro-abortion madness and illogic as they surface.  To us, this is not just a legal exercise.  We know that babies’ lives hang in the balance.