July 10, 2020

Biden Pledges to Reinstate Obamacare Birth Control and Abortifacient Mandates

Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
After the Supreme Court took a step towards protecting the conscience rights of employers in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Wednesday that he would reinstate Obama-era policies that would require employers to guarantee their employees access to birth control and abortifacients.

“If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the [Supreme Court’s 2014] Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions,” said a statement released by the Biden campaign. “This accommodation will allow women at these organizations to access contraceptive coverage, not through their employer-provided plan, but instead through their insurance company or a third-party administrator.”

The Little Sisters of the Poor, despite being a religious charity group, was unable to get an exemption to the Obamacare contraception and abortifacient mandate due to the fact that it does not exclusively employ or serve Catholics. The group has repeatedly stated that simply using a third party to administer abortion and contraception coverage would not stop the practice from violating their beliefs. No pro-life employer should have abortion coverage forced upon their employees.

Trump Administration Begins Process to Withdraw from WHO

After over a month of questioning the World Health Organization's (WHO) competence and allegiance (which included the withdrawal of US funding), the Trump administration has finally announced that it is beginning the process of withdrawal from the WHO.

The pro-abortion UN organization has been accused of downplaying and misleading the public about the danger of COVID-19 during its early development to cover for the Chinese government.

"In December, the WHO refused to act on or publicize Taiwan’s warning that the new respiratory infection emerging in China could pass from human to human," Florida Senator Marco Rubio wrote in the National Review

"In mid January, despite accumulating evidence of patients contracting what we now know as COVID-19 from other people, the organization repeated the CCP’s [Chinese Communist Party's] lie that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. In January the WHO, at Beijing’s behest, also blocked Taiwan from participating in critical meetings to coordinate responses to the coronavirus and even reportedly provided wrong information about the virus’s spread in Taiwan. These actions are unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue."

The process to withdraw from the UN requires a full year of advance notice, so the United States would not separate from the WHO until July 6, 2021. This would require President Trump's reelection and likely the approval of Congress. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has already said that he will cancel the United States' withdrawal on his first day in office if he is elected.

While it may not be the main reason for the United States' withdrawal from the WHO, taking this action will also separate US ties with an organization that consistently uses international health funding and initiatives to promote abortion globally.

According to CNA, "The WHO’s coronavirus pandemic plans for Ecuador includes Minimum Initial Service Packages from the United Nations Population Fund, which include instruments used in the context of abortion: vacuum extractors, craniocrasts for the crushing of fetal skills, and drugs to perform abortions. The equipment comes with manuals from the abortion provider IBIS, which explain how the equipment can be used for abortion."

Up until the end of May when President Trump withdrew US funding from the WHO, US tax dollars contributed to $200 million of the organization's budget yearly.

July 9, 2020

Supreme Court Protects Conscience Rights in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, But the Fight isn't Over

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor in a 7-2 decision protecting their conscience rights from government mandates, but sadly their long battle in court is not yet over.

The full opinions of the Supreme Court Justices can be read here.

The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic charity run by nuns who work to serve the elderly and the poor. For several years, however, they have been stuck in a legal battle against government powers attempting to force them to accept the Obama administration's "contraception mandate" under the Affordable Care Act. The mandate requires employers to provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and “emergency birth control” in employee health plans.

“We are overjoyed that, once again, the Supreme Court has protected our right to serve the elderly without violating our faith,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters in a statement. “Our life’s work and great joy is serving the elderly poor and we are so grateful that the contraceptive mandate will no longer steal our attention from our calling.”

The Supreme Court decision supports employers' right to seek an exemption from the contraception mandate and also lifts a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's conscience protection rule that would help employers do so.

"We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption," Justice Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. "We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The case is being sent back to the lower courts, where they will decide whether the Trump administration rule offering religious and moral exemptions to employers is "arbitrary and capricious." 

Justice Alito was troubled by this part of the Supreme Court's decision. In his concurring opinion (joined by Justice Gorsuch) Justice Alito wrote, 

"This will prolong the legal battle in which the Little Sisters have now been engaged for seven years—even though during all this time no employee of the Little Sisters has come forward with an objection to the Little Sisters’ conduct. I understand the Court’s desire to decide no more than is strictly necessary, but under the circumstances here, I would decide one additional question: whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) does not compel the religious exemption granted by the current rule. If RFRA requires this exemption, the Departments did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in granting it.

Alito later added, "And in my judgment, RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection…"

Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued against the ruling in her dissenting opinion:

"In accommodating claims of religious freedom, this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs.  Today for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree."

Wednesday's decision protects the rights of employers from being trampled on by employees and by the government, and it does not take the supposed right to abortion away from employees. Even if access to abortion is considered a right, that right does not require employers to pay for their employees' abortions. Employers' rights were challenged by the contraception mandate, and the Supreme Court decision reflects this.

“One of our most fundamental rights is the right to the free exercise of our beliefs and that these beliefs are not trampled by government overreach,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of protecting conscience rights.”

It would be unsurprising if the Little Sisters of the Poor once again found themselves in front of the Supreme Court arguing this same case in the future. Courts across the nation need to recognize the right of employers to object to the morally awful practice of abortion.

July 8, 2020

Gallup Poll Shows Pro-Life Lead vs. Pro-Choice Single-Issue Voters

Pro-life advocates at March for Life 2015
Photo Credit: American Life League / Flickr
A new Gallup poll shows promising information for pro-life advocates in coming elections. The percentage of pro-life Americans who see abortion as a "threshold issue" when voting for any candidate is significantly higher than pro-abortion Americans.

Gallup posted an article called "One in Four Americans Consider Abortion a Key Voting Issue" discussing its recent poll and how the statistics differ from previous years. For pro-lifers, one statement in particular sticks out: "Currently, 30% of those in the pro-life camp and 19% in the pro-choice camp say they are single-issue voters when it comes to abortion." This means that a pro-life voter is more likely to refuse to vote for a candidate who supports abortion than a pro-abortion candidate is to refuse to vote for a pro-life candidate. 

Gallup also noted that this stat follows a trend: "The latest findings, from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll conducted May 1-13, show the continuation of a trend seen since 2001 whereby Americans who consider themselves to be pro-life are more likely than those who identify as pro-choice to say abortion is a threshold issue."

Pro-life advocates are passionate, and it is easy to imagine the number of pro-life voters who refuse to vote for candidates who disagree on the issue of abortion going even higher than 30% in the future.

Missouri Renews $6 Million in Funding for "Alternatives to Abortion" Program

Missouri State Capitol
Photo Credit: Shellie Gonzalez / Flickr
Before the 4th of July holiday, MO. Gov. Mike Parson signed into law a budget bill that renewed $6 million in funding to the state's Alternatives to Abortion program.

Under the program, Missouri women can qualify for a variety of services if they are pregnant and live at or below 185% of the poverty level. Once they are accepted, Alternatives to Abortion assists women for a year after their child is born. The services the program provides include child care, domestic abuse protection, drug and alcohol treatment, educational services, food, clothing, pregnancy supplies, housing, job training and placement, medical and mental health care, parenting education, prenatal care, transportation, ultrasounds, utilities, and adoption assistance.

Rather than feeling pressured into abortion, low-income women in Missouri can receive support from their state government which helps them have the resources to choose life for their children. Illinois tries to undercut this by turning itself into an abortion hub for neighboring pro-life states. It's sad to see a neighboring state make sacrifices to help women and children while in Illinois children are sacrificed for the sake of convenience.

July 7, 2020

Anonymous Rape Victim of Jeffrey Epstein Says He Forced Her to Abort

In an interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, an anonymous woman said that she was forced to abort her child after being repeatedly drugged, assaulted, and raped by deceased sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

The anonymous woman said that she was raped over 20 times between the ages of 14 and 16, and it only stopped after she aborted a child that she conceived with Epstein.

“The fact that I had to kill my child really affected me and my family,” she told Llenas.

She went on to say that Maxwell, Epstein and a group of others drugged and gang-raped her as punishment one last time when they suspected that she talked with her grandparents about aborting her child. “I was dumped off in my grandparents' yard naked, and was told that I wouldn’t come back alive the next time,” she said.

“I would definitely take the stand and testify because I believe she deserves to be where she is today and she deserves to stay there for the rest of her life,” she said, referring to Ghislaine Maxwell who was recently charged and imprisoned for contributing to the Epstein's abuse against young women. “I hope by me coming forward, it encourages other victims.”

The abortion industry is often used as a tool by pedophiles and rapists to attempt to cover-up their crimes or escape from the consequences of conceiving a child. As more of these cases come to light, the world will have the opportunity to see and discuss this truth instead of sweeping it aside. Abortion businesses enable rapists and devalue their victims as the necessary collateral damage of "choice."

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Chicago "Bubble Zone" Law

Photo Credit: www.ccPixs.com
On July 2, just three days after deciding against Louisiana's admitting privileges requirement, the Supreme Court decided it would not hear challenges to two pro-abortion "bubble zone" laws (including a Chicago ordinance) banning or limiting pro-life speech outside abortion clinics.

The 2009 Chicago ordinance bans pro-life advocates who are within 50 feet of an abortion clinic from coming within eight feet of someone who is visiting the clinic. Pro-life advocates challenged the law after the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.

In the ruling for the Massachusetts law, the justices said it was an “extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers” to prohibit free speech on “a public way or sidewalk adjacent to a reproductive health care facility.”

The court did not comment on its decision to not hear "bubble zone" cases from Chicago or Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, but the court's order did note that Justice Clarence Thomas would have heard the Chicago case.

July 6, 2020

Documents Indicate FDA Purchased Aborted Body Parts from Advanced Bioscience Resources

Photo Credit: Ron Dyar / Unsplash
On June 23, Judicial Watch announced that it received 165 pages of FDA records through a Freedom of Information request and lawsuit revealing that the FDA had contracts with Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) for the purchase of aborted baby tissue.

According to Judicial Watch, the documents revealed that the FDA had purchased 8 contracts with ABR between 2012 and 2018 worth a total of $96,370.

A June 28, 2017 email exchange between an FDA contract specialist and an ABR official shows that in one contract the FDA asked for livers and thymuses harvested from aborted children with an age range of 16-24 weeks. It further specifies that “Tissue must be fresh and never frozen.”

“These documents are a horror show,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These records show that the FDA was trafficking in human fetal parts. Incredibly, there continues to be a push to reopen these monstrous experiments!”

July 3, 2020

Supreme Court Protects Federal Government's Right to Deny Funding to International Orgs Based on Policy

Supreme Court of the United States
Photo Credi: Jeff Kubina / Flickr
On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc that the United States government has the right to deny funding to international organizations that refuse to comply with policy guidelines. This has important implications for the federal government's right to stop providing funds to foreign organizations that support abortion.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch ruled in favor of the United States foreign aid agency USAID, which had one of its rules challenged by foreign organizations who argued their freedom of speech was being violated. The USAID policy in question required humanitarian organizations to have policies opposing prostitution and sex trafficking to receive US funding to help combat HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. When passing foreign aid legislation to fight these diseases, US congressmen understood that prostitution and sex trafficking had a negative impact on their spread, so they put this requirement in place to make sure the funds were being used more efficiently.

The SCOTUS decision declared that “as a matter of American constitutional law […] foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution.” In other words, foreign organizations cannot claim that the US government is infringing upon their right to freedom of speech because the US constitution only provides rights to Americans.

This has important implications for the pro-life movement. The Mexico City Policy, which prevents US funding from going to pro-abortion groups overseas, is now supported by judicial precedent in addition to the Constitution and common sense.

AP Investigation Shows "Demographic Genocide" of Chinese Muslims Involving Forced Abortion

Chinese President Xi Jinping
Photo Credit: Janne Wittoeck / Flickr
In an investigative article released on June 28, the Associated Press again exposed the Chinese government for attempting to systematically control the population of Chinese Muslims by forcing intrauterine devices, sterilization, and abortion on minority women.

Minority families who break China's arbitrary child limit face large fines, imprisonment in re-education camps, or government agents taking their children away to orphanages for indoctrination. The AP's sources called China's actions "demographic genocide."

Dr. Joanne Smith Finley, Senior Lecturer in Chinese Studies at Newcastle University in the U.K., told the AP, “It’s genocide, full stop. It’s not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it’s slow, painful, creeping genocide. These are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population.”

Forced abortion as a means of population control by a totalitarian government is a horrible violation of human rights. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a statement to Reuters about the situation, saying, “We call on the Chinese Communist Party to immediately end these horrific practices and ask all nations to join the United States in demanding an end to these dehumanizing abuses.”

July 2, 2020

Biden Responds to June v. Russo: Women Have a "constitutional right to choice under any circumstance"

Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
In response to the recent Supreme Court decision in June v. Russo, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden released a short statement affirming his support for an unlimited right to abortion.

"Women’s health care rights have been under attack as states across the country have passed extreme laws restricting women’s constitutional right to choice under any circumstance," the statement reads. "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that states cannot put in place laws that unduly burden a women’s right to make her own health care decisions with her doctor."

Louisiana's law put no restriction's on a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion. It required abortionists to maintain admitting privileges at a hospital. It was designed to keep the safety standards of Louisiana abortion clinics the same as the standards at any other surgical facility in the state.

Biden's statement goes on to say, "As President, I will codify Roe v. Wade and my Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate a woman’s protected, constitutional right to choose."

Pro-abortion candidates make this statement surprisingly frequently. In addition to showing their unabashed enthusiasm for abortion under any circumstances, a desire to codify Roe v. Wade into the Constitution implies that the right supposedly given in the Supreme Court decision isn't reflected in the Constitution's text. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will soon be made up of justices who believe the same.

Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Against Iowa 24-Hour Wait Period Law

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds
On Monday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a bill that requires women to take 24 hours of reflection between their first appointment and having an abortion. The very next day, District Court Judge Mitchell Turner placed a temporary injunction against the law's enforcement pending the decision in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

According to the Des Moines Register, Planned Parenthood “'established a likelihood of success' on its claim that the law was passed unconstitutionally by being added to an unrelated piece of legislation at the last minute.”

The Iowa law requires abortion clinics to provide relevant information at an initial appointment before a woman can have an abortion at a second appointment at least 24 hours later. At this initial appointment, women must be offered the ability to see an ultrasound image of their child and materials about life-affirming alternatives such as adoption.

July 1, 2020

New CMP Video Shows Testimony from Planned Parenthood on Organ Harvesting Practices

Screen Capture from
Center for Medical Progress Video
The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a new video Tuesday showing testimony from Planned Parenthood employees during their suit against the CMP and undercover journalists who exposed them for profiting from the sale of body parts harvested from aborted children.

Click here or look below to see the video.

Advanced Bioscience Resources Procurement Manager Perrin Larton said under oath that "once every couple of months" a pregnant woman would come into the abortion clinic and deliver an intact fetus. She also testified that she saw the beating hearts of some of these babies after they were removed from the child's body. She may not have considered them to be "alive" or "viable," but these statements can and should lead many to believe that Planned Parenthood killed and dissected live human beings to harvest body parts for research.

The video shows testimony from several other people involved in the trafficking of fetal body parts, including Dr. Deborah Nucatola and CEO of Planned Parenthood Orange and San Bernardino Counties Jon Dunn.

Missouri Gov. Chooses Not to Appeal Court Ruling Granting Dangerous St. Louis Planned Parenthood a Renewed License

A 2016 protest at the
St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic
Photo Credit: Paul Sableman / Flickr
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said that he would not be appealing a decision by the Missouri Administrative Court to grant a renewed license to the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, Missouri.

Gov. Parson said that this decision was influenced by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS), which was unwilling to pursue legal action after the court decision. At least one official from the DHSS has suggested that the department is satisfied with changes the abortion clinic made since the DHSS originally denied the renewal of its license in June of 2019.

Many are surprised and upset by the sudden halt in legal action against the St. Louis clinic, including Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. Operation Rescue is a pro-life organization that keeps track of abortion clinics that injure and hospitalize women, so it is very aware of the potential harm the St. Louis clinic could do if allowed to remain open.

“The DHSS comments are extremely na├»ve,” said Newman. “This is an abortion facility that has injured over 75 women, publicly lied about policies of the DHSS, obstructed Department investigations, and blatantly ignored regulations. There is no reason to believe that these arrogant people won’t continue to disregard the law and patient care standards when it suits them as they have done for years.”

While the courts temporarily allowed the clinic to operate without a license, it sent all women seeking abortions to the new Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood clinic in Illinois. This clinic was constructed in secret to serve as a potential location for Missouri women to get abortions if the St. Louis clinic was forced closed, but it likely also helped the St. Louis clinic pass its new licensing inspection after the Administrative Court ruling. By sending abortion-minded women to Illinois, the St. Louis clinic could make sure that it kept itself out of trouble until after it got a new license. Now that it has one, it can go back to injuring women like it has so many times in the past.

June 30, 2020

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Louisiana's Admitting Privileges Requirement for Abortionists

After a long debate, the Supreme Court finally ruled on June v. Russo Monday in a 5-4 decision blocking a Louisiana law that would require abortion clinics to maintain hospital admitting privileges. The decision and all written opinions can be read here.

The Supreme Court originally agreed to hear the challenge to Louisiana's Act 620, known as “The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act,” on October 4, 2019. It was a bipartisan bill written by State Sen. Katrina Jackson (D) to make abortion clinics abide by the same standards as other surgical facilities in Louisiana (which were already required to maintain hospital admitting privileges).

Pro-life and pro-abortion advocates waited anxiously, believing that recent Trump-appointed justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh might swing the Supreme Court's decision in favor of pro-life values in line with the constitution rather than pro-abortion judicial precedents. Both Trump appointees voted in favor of Act 620, but Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the four more left-leaning justices; thus outweighing the recent changes in the Supreme Court's makeup.

Although he sided with the liberal justices in his decision, he did not contribute to their written opinion and instead wrote his own. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” Roberts wrote. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Confusingly, Roberts voted in favor of the Texas law he referenced in his opinion. Notre Dame law school professor Rick Garnett told CNA that Justice Roberts has sided against judicial precedent before. “It is difficult to see why he did not do so here, too,” Garnett said. “Four years hardly seems like enough time to convert a judicial mistake [the 2016 Whole Woman’s Health decision Roberts referenced in his opinion] into an unmovable monument.”

The rest of the justices siding with the majority opinion argued that abortionists had issues gaining admitting privileges for reasons "unrelated to competency," and the law, therefore, placed an undue burden on abortion access.

In their dissenting opinions, pro-life judges argued that abortionists had no legal standing to sue the State over Louisiana's law, arguing that physicians don't have a legal right to perform abortions without regulation. The dissenting justices also took issue with the fact that plaintiffs claimed to be suing the state on behalf of possible future customers whose access to abortion may be impacted by abortionists' inability to receive admitting privileges. While claiming to sue on behalf of women seeking abortions, they were actively challenging a law designed to keep abortion safe.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that the plaintiffs in the case could easily have acted in bad faith to help prove their case. Justice Alito wrote, "[The plaintiffs] had an incentive to do as little as they thought the District Court would demand," because if they failed to receive admitting privileges it would help prove their case. If they received admitting privileges, they would be held to a higher medical standard without any monetary benefit and likely fail to overturn Act 620. If they failed to receive admitting privileges (which they did), they could potentially overturn the law (which they also did).

June 29, 2020

Doctors Left Quadriplegic COVID-19 Patient to Starve and Die Because of Disability

Photo Credit: Texas Right to Life
47-year-old Michael Hickson passed away due to COVID-19 on June 11 after doctors denied him food and treatment for six days. The reason? He was paralyzed and "didn't have much quality of life" according to them.

Hickson became quadriplegic in May 2017 after going into cardiac arrest. He was revived with CPR but became permanently paralyzed due to the lack of oxygen to his brain. He recovered enough to speak and move his head in response to people around him, but he contracted COVID-19 from a staff member at the nursing home he stayed in. He was admitted to St. David’s South Austin Medical Center in Texas, where he died when doctors refused to provide treatment or food. His wife, Melissa Hinckson, had no input in the decision and is left grieving.

“I’m struggling to understand how and why this could ever happen. I lost my best friend, my better half, the other half of my heart,” She said. “I was stripped of my rights as a wife and left helplessly watching my husband be executed. I now have no husband, a widow at 47. My children left with no father to celebrate Father’s Day. All taken away from us. I have no other words to express how I feel today except hurt, angry, and frustrated.”

Missouri's Only Abortion Clinic Receives One-Year License After Year-Long Legal Battle

Photo Credit: Paul Sableman / Flickr
The Missouri health department issued a one-year license to Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services of the St. Louis Region last week, following a decision by a state administrative hearing judge. The St. Louis abortion clinic is the only remaining clinic in the state of Missouri. The state nearly became abortion-free after the Missouri health department investigated health violations at the clinic and elected not to renew its license, but this will not be the case for now.

Missouri's health department cited multiple issues with the clinic leading to its initial decision to deny a renewed license: An “unprecedented lack of cooperation” with health department officials, a “failure to meet basic standards of patient care,” and a refusal to perform pelvic examinations before abortion procedures despite its agreement to do so.

The clinic had been operating without a license since June 2019, due to judges granting a temporary stay on the health department's decision not to renew its license, but the Administrative Hearing Commission finally made its official decision last month. After another inspection by the Missouri health department, the Planned Parenthood clinic is licensed once again.

The decision may come as a surprise even to Planned Parenthood, which responded to the situation by secretly constructing and opening a new Planned Parenthood facility in Fairview Heights, Illinois just across the state line. If the St. Louis clinic was forced closed, Planned Parenthood could avoid Missouri's safety requirements for abortion clinics by drawing women into Illinois where virtually no abortion regulations exist at all.

If the Missouri health department wants to appeal the Administrative Hearing Commission's ruling, it must do so by June 29.

June 26, 2020

Trump Signs Executive Order to Improve Foster Care and Adoption

On June 24, President Trump signed an executive order titled the “Historic Child Welfare Executive Order” to help foster and adoptive parents. This is an important win for pro-life advocates since adoption is one of the major alternatives to abortion that pregnant mothers can consider.

The Health and Human Services press release mentions three specific ways that the order is designed to improve the foster care and adoption systems in the United States. It aims to create and strengthen partnerships between state government agencies and private, public, and faith-based organizations;  improve the resources given to caregivers and the children they care for; and improve federal oversight over key statutory child welfare requirements.

“‘President Trump’s executive order demonstrates how his administration has prioritized placing each of America’s foster kids with the loving, permanent family they deserve,” said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar. “Since the President took office, we have focused on promoting adoption unlike any previous administration, and we’ve begun to see results.”

WHO Continues Using Pandemic to Push for Global Abortion Rights

On June 1, the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) updated its interim guidance regarding essential medical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The old document vaguely mentioned "reproductive health, but the updated guidance explicitly calls for increased global access to abortions.

Specifically, the guidance asks that member nations make abortion available “to the full extent of the law” and “consider reducing barriers that could delay care.” This would include increasing access to DIY "teleabortions" in which women could receive abortion pills in the mail while never meeting with a doctor in person. Pro-abortion advocates argue that increasing access to abortion pills via telemedicine could slow the spread of COVID-19 since there would be fewer in-person appointments, but these actions could also prove dangerous or deadly for pregnant mothers in addition to their unborn children.

Doctors using video conferencing or telephone calls to determine the "correct" abortion method for a woman will be unable to perform ultrasounds, which help them understand the gestational age and condition of an unborn child. Without this information, a doctor may prescribe abortion pills past the date when they are a safe abortion method for the mother, or fail to diagnose a condition such as ectopic pregnancy (when an unborn child implants itself and grows outside of the mother's uterus). In these cases, a woman who attempts to complete a DIY abortion via the abortion pill regimen could face severe complications including hemorrhage or death.

President Trump already took action to cut US funding from the WHO at the end of last month. His reasoning for doing so was mostly related to the organization's alleged relationship with China, claiming that the WHO helped China cover up the danger and spread of COVID-19.

June 25, 2020

Planned Parenthood Sues to Block Iowa 24-Hour Wait Period

Photo Credit: bloomsberries / Flickr
On June 23, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the state of Iowa to block legislation that would require a woman to have a 24-hour wait period after her first appointment to consider her decision to abort. The law, which passed on June 14, created this waiting period to make women consider the decision carefully and not impulsively end an unborn life.

“The waiting period would force women to go to an extra appointment before receiving an abortion. That is medically unnecessary and could take several extra days or even weeks,” said Erin Davison-Rippey, Planned Parenthood’s Iowa executive director.

The bill requires this additional appointment so that the abortion clinic can provide materials such as ultrasound images of the unborn child and a description of other life-affirming options such as adoption.

Rep. Shannon Lundgren pointed out on the floor of the Iowa House of Representatives that there are several other situations in which Iowa law mandates waiting periods for important decisions. A family must wait three days after their child is born to place the child for adoption, and 90 days must pass after a divorce decree is served for a marriage to be officially dissolved.

June 24, 2020

Abortion Clinic Hospitalizes Two Women After Botching Two Late-Term Abortions

Photo Credit: Jonnica Hill / Unsplash
An abortion clinic in Bethesda, Maryland has recently come under fire for hospitalizing two women after botching late-term abortions. An anonymous whistleblower spoke out to Operation Rescue to describe the horrific incidents, which involved the body parts of aborted children being shoved through their mothers' uterine walls and into their abdominal cavities.

CARE abortion clinic hospitalized the women on May 12 and May 21, just nine days apart. Ironically, the woman hospitalized in the first incident left the hospital the same day that the CARE clinic hospitalized the second woman.

According to the whistleblower, both incidents involved dilation and evacuation dismemberment abortions that went wrong. Both women bled profusely and required several units of blood transfusion to save their lives. 

In the first incident, several body parts belonging to the aborted child were shoved through a tear in the mother's uterus, including a leg that was intact from the hip down. This woman's internal damage to her bowels was so severe that she received a bowel resection and needed to stay in the hospital for nine days after the incident.

The second hospitalization was similar but involved the body of a fetus that was almost fully intact. Somehow, the abortionist had forced the majority of the child through the uterine wall when attempting an abortion. The whistleblower was particularly upset about the amount of force the abortionist would have had to use to push the entire body of the fetus into the abdominal cavity.

Concerned parties have called on HHS Secretary Alex Azar to investigate injuries caused by the CARE facility.

Aurora Planned Parenthood Worker Fumbles 911 Call for Unresponsive Patient

Planned Parenthood in Aurora, IL
Photo Credit: Operation Rescue
On May, 27, a woman who just had an abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora, Illinois, a patient was lying unresponsive. One worker picked up the phone to dial 911 and have an ambulance pick up the patient, whom the clinic was seemingly responsible for injuring. The conversation that followed showed a complete lack of competence in the Planned Parenthood employee to convey simple and vital information to an emergency dispatcher.

The Planned Parenthood employee did not provide the street address for the clinic, despite being asked for it twice. The 911 dispatcher eventually had to look up the address herself and move on with the call to gather more information. The next exchange could be considered comical if there wasn't an injured woman in need of emergency medical assistance. The dispatcher asks the caller, "Who needs the ambulance?" To which the employee replied, "Yes." The dispatcher has to ask multiple times to get any information from the Planned Parenthood employee, wasting valuable time that could be used to help the unconscious patient.

Click here to read more from Operation Rescue.

June 23, 2020

World's Youngest Surviving Preemie Goes Home After Birth at 21 Weeks Gestation

Jemarius Jachin Harbor Jr.
Photo Credit: A Moment with Kaylor / Facebook
In December of last year, Jemarius Jachin Harbor Jr. was born at just 21 weeks gestation and weighed only 13 ounces. Now, Jemarius has successfully graduated from the NICU and will be going home with his family after receiving medical support from hospital staff.

Jemarius's parents Jessica McPherson and Jemarius Harbor Senior must have been aware that prematurely-born children are denied care by medical professionals regularly for being "non-viable," because they recalled speaking with staff at Emory Decatur Hospital in Georgia to plead for help.

“We looked at each other in the eye and I told [the doctor] just give it a try,” McPherson said to Fox5. “I just want you to try. As long as you try that’s all that matters to me. Don’t just up and say that you can’t do it. Just ‘cause you haven’t done it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.”

Before Jemarius, the record for the youngest surviving prematurely-born child was 21 weeks and four days. Jemarius broke that record by four days, proving that younger and younger children have a chance at survival if ever-improving medical professionals attempt to help.

June 22, 2020

Tennessee Legislature Passes Bill Banning Abortion after Heartbeat Detection or for Discriminatory Reasons

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee
In the early hours of Friday morning last week, the Tennessee Senate passed House Bill 2263. If signed into law by pro-life Gov. Bill Lee, who has already voiced his support of the legislation, it would ban both the abortion of children who have detectable heartbeats and the abortion of children due to their race, sex, or diagnosis with Down syndrome.

The bill also requires physicians to take several steps to inform women about their unborn children before they complete an abortion. Women who complete abortions will need to confirm that physicians offered to show them ultrasound images of their children and let them listen to their heartbeats if they are detectable. This may sound confusing since the bill already bans the abortion of children with detectable heartbeats, but the bill was cleverly designed with layers of protection for the unborn that will hopefully remain standing if certain elements of the legislation don't survive in court. The ACLU has already stated that it plans to challenge the law, so the additional protections may prove necessary.

According to The Tennessean, the bill goes on to ban abortion at 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 weeks of gestation if courts strike down the ban on abortion when a heartbeat is detected. These layers not only provide additional protection for unborn children, but they force judges to specifically define exactly what gestational age they believe is acceptable if they do try to take protections away.

June 19, 2020

Missouri Woman Saves Her Unborn Child with Abortion Pill Reversal

Photo Credit: Maria Ionova / Unsplash
Pregnancy Help News published the story on their website of a Missouri woman this week, telling how she came to save her child with abortion pill reversal after she took Mifepristone, the first part of the abortion pill regimen.

The woman, whom the article refers to as "April" was convinced by her boyfriend to have an abortion despite her initial objection. 

“Her boyfriend started pressuring her to have an abortion about two weeks after she found out she was pregnant,” said Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) of Rolla Executive Director Joseph Dalton. “He said she was ruining his life. That it was her fault.”

He even threatened to take her to court to take custody of the child away from her if she did decide to give birth.

April traveled to Hope Clinic in Granite City, Illinois to obtain a chemical abortion (abortion pills), but she immediately felt regret after taking Mifepristone, the first part of the abortion pill regimen. Luckily, her Google searches led her to Heartbeat International's abortion pill reversal hotline. Nurses with the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and the PRC of Rolla helped April acquire Progesterone, which can reverse the effects of Mifepristone.

Mifepristone kills an unborn child by blocking a pregnant mother's natural progesterone, which helps the mother's body provide oxygen and nutrients to her child. By taking more progesterone quickly, pregnant mothers may be able to save their child by restoring the normal flow of sustenance from the mother's body to the child.

April and her child are now happy and healthy. She expects to give birth to a boy this fall.

Kentucky Attorney General Asks Full 6th Circuit to Hear Dismemberment Abortion Ban Case

Kentucky Attorney General
Daniel Cameron
Earlier this week, Pro-life Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron asked the full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case involving a Kentucky law banning dismemberment abortion.

A three-judge panel on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a district judge's permanent injunction against Kentucky's dismemberment abortion ban, which would have banned a common method of abortion which involves tearing individual limbs off an unborn child to remove them from a mother's body, usually before the child is killed. This means that the children suffer great pain and die in their mother's wombs by bleeding out. Abortionists choose this method of abortion when an unborn child has grown too large for a mother to safely abort the child via the abortion pill regimen or vacuum aspiration.

The three-judge panel from the 6th Circuit found that Kentucky's ban on this method of abortion was “unduly burdening the right to elect abortion,” but Attorney General Cameron tendered a petition for the full Appeals Court to rehear the case.

“We’re exhausting every possible option to ensure that this law continues to be defended and is ultimately enforced,” said Attorney General Cameron in a statement. “The law extends compassion and dignity to the unborn by ensuring they are not subjected to the horror and pain of the dismemberment process while still alive. We would never allow the dismemberment of any other living being, and we are going to continue fighting, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, so that it can’t happen to unborn children.”

June 18, 2020

Pro-Abortion Org Founder Tells Reporters 9/11 Terrorist Attack "Saved" Abortion Drug Mifepristone

Photo Credit: Cyril Attias / Flickr
Beverly Winikoff was the Director for Reproductive Health for the pro-abortion Population Council during the time when the abortion drug Mifepristone had recently been approved by the FDA. In a recent interview with Columbia University journalists, she said that the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 "saved" the abortion pill by covering up a news story that could have created a lot of controversy for the abortion drug.

"I remember the first day we heard about a death [from the abortion pill]," Beverly told the reporters. "It was September 10, 2001… And that’s [the 9/11 terrorist attack] what saved mifepristone."

"And that was like, existential, like, ‘Oh my God. What is going on?’ And ‘is this going to be a problem?’ … Planned Parenthood was very worried and was thinking of taking [the abortion pill] out of its clinics. And this was after it was registered."

A Canadian woman died after taking the abortion pill during Canada's clinical trials on Sept. 10. She developed a bacterial infection called Clostridium sordellii after completing her abortion.

It's also interesting to see that Planned Parenthood considered ending its use of the pill after this story broke. Planned Parenthood has only moved toward more radical positions on abortion over time, however. When once it may have accepted legislation preventing discriminatory abortions or adding protective measures for women seeking abortions. Planned Parenthood recently demanded that abortion clinics remain open to provide elective abortions when other elective surgeries were prohibited due to the pandemic. It has been exposed for harvesting the body parts of aborted children so they can be sold to researchers.

Mississippi Legislature Passes "Life Equality Act" Banning Discriminatory Abortions

Photo Credit: Martin Cathrae / Flickr
Mississippi legislators voted to pass the "Life Equality Act" early this week, and it will soon be sent to pro-life Democrat Gov. Tate Reeves to be signed. The bill would make it illegal for a physician to abort an unborn child simply because the parents take issue with the child's race, gender, or possible genetic abnormality.

“We are simply saying all these rights that have been won over the years in the area of racism or sexism should be applied to the unborn in Mississippi,” said Mississippi Senator Joey Fillingane.

Surprisingly few states have passed this common-sense legislation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine states have banned abortion based on an unborn child's sex, two have banned it based on their race and two have banned abortion in cases when doctors believe the child may have a genetic abnormality. Missouri is the only state which has successfully banned abortion in all three cases. Kentucky has also passed legislation to do this, but a court order put it on hold, preventing it from coming into effect.

June 17, 2020

Iowa State Legislature Passes 24-Hour Waiting Period for Abortions

Iowa State Capitol
Photo Credit: Michael Leland / Flickr
Last weekend, legislators in Iowa passed a bill to require a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. By requiring that abortion appointments be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance, legislators hope women will take the time to think about this incredibly important decision, thereby saving innocent lives.

The Iowa House voted 53-42 to approve the bill, and the Senate approved the measure with a 31-16 vote on party lines.

According to the Des Moines Register, State Rep. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville said, “Waiting periods help ensure that decisions are made not under duress and not under undue influences. It’s the hope that after taking time to consider it, a woman would choose life over death.”

Pro-life Gov. Kim Reynolds is expected by many to sign the bill into law but has not yet done so at the time of writing.

June 16, 2020

Abortion Clinic Hospitalizes Woman with Overdose of Pain Killers

Photo Credit: Operation Rescue
An abortion clinic in Michigan hospitalized a woman last month during an abortion procedure by administering an overdose of painkilling medication, causing her to fall unconscious and remain unresponsive on multiple attempts to revive her.

According to the 911 call recording obtained by Operation Rescue, the clinic attempted to administer the drug Racan, which is used to counteract opioid overdoses, but the 25-year old African American patient remained unresponsive.

“Medical emergencies will continue at this troubled abortion facility until Michigan authorities find the will to shut them down,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “How many scandals, criminal violations, and botched abortions are needed before Michigan decides this abortion facility is just too dangerous to operate?”

Planned Parenthood Officially Endorses Joe Biden for President

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
In a statement released on their website alongside a video, Planned Parenthood finally made its support of presumed presidential candidate Joe Biden official yesterday.

The statement praised Joe Biden for his role in the affordable care act and his pro-abortion voting record, saying: 

"Joe Biden was instrumental in the creation of the Affordable Care Act, expanding birth control with no co-pay to nearly 63 million women, and helping to ensure that sexual and reproductive health care was accessible across the country. Biden has pledged to fight to not just protect but also expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, and he left the Senate in 2009 with a 100% voting record from Planned Parenthood Action Fund."

 In a clip from the video posted with the statement, Biden said, “As President, I’m going to do everything in my power to expand access to quality, affordable health care, including reproductive health care. I’m proud to stand with Planned Parenthood in this fight.”

The statement goes on to say that one of the reasons Planned Parenthood is endorsing Biden is that he has promised to repeal the Hyde amendment, which in theory should prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. This has been circumvented in multiple ways since its passage, but it has at least made it more difficult for federal funds to make their way into Planned Parenthood's pockets. If it is repealed, abortion businesses could become much richer.

June 15, 2020

HHS Protects Doctors' Right to Object to Abortion and Gender Reassignment

Photo Credit: American Life League / Flickr
The Department of Health and Human Services put in place a new rule that will protect doctors' right to object to certain morally questionable procedures based on their conscience. The rule makes it clear that objecting to abortion and gender reassignment procedures is not an act of sex-based discrimination.

“HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology,” said an HHS announcement.

Eight states and several healthcare providers challenged the Obama-era definition of sex-discrimination issued by the HHS in 2016. This culminated in Judge Reed O’Connor issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction against the regulation, finding that it violated the religious freedom of medical professionals. This injunction was never appealed. Now, the problematic regulations are no longer in place.

June 12, 2020

UN Members Ignore US Motion Blocking Abortion Promotion in Emergency Aid

A Morocco delegate steering negotiations regarding UN humanitarian assistance during emergencies (such as COVID-19) ignored a declaration from the US that should have blocked the legislation. The US objected because the current draft used language the UN has abused to promote abortion globally. Rather than following the correct procedures, the Moroccan diplomat simply acknowledged the complaint and forwarded the draft for publication.

“The United States cannot accept the terms ‘sexual and reproductive health care services’ and ‘sexual and reproductive health’,” reads a statement by US diplomats to the UN. UN agencies have taken advantage of similar language to promote abortion globally.

“At the UN and elsewhere, the United States will continue its work to build consensus on clear terminology that would better promote women’s health without also promoting abortion,” the U.S. statement continues. “The United States rejects any interpretation of international human rights to require any State Party to provide access to abortion. In short, there is no international right to abortion, nor is there any duty on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion.”

The UN, in an effort to simplify decision-making while UN headquarters are closed due to COVID-19, currently uses a procedure that considers a resolution adopted if no members object. The US objected, but the process was not honored.

This resolution will need to complete more steps before it is officially passed, so pro-life nations will have opportunities to block it or vote against it.

District Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Trump Protect Life Rule for Title X

Photo Credit: Joe Gratz / Flickr
This week, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker dismissed a lawsuit by the abortion business Maine Family Planning which challenged the Title X Protect Life Rule.

Maine Family Planning argued that the Title X Rule violated their free speech rights under the first amendment, but Walker disagreed, saying the rule, "authorizes nondirective counseling, including abortion counseling; it only prohibits an abortion referral.”

The Protect Life Rule forbids organizations receiving Title X funding from committing abortions, co-locating with organizations that commit abortions, or referring patients to abortions as a method of family planning.

Maine Family Planning previously received over $2 million in Title X funding annually but chose to withdraw from the program rather than adhere to the new requirements. Planned Parenthood similarly chose to stop receiving Title X funding rather than limit itself to life-affirming methods of family planning.

Abortion businesses still receive taxpayer funding in other ways, but this decision is a good step in the direction of preventing all Americans from subsidizing the murder of unborn children across the country.