4th Circuit Hears Challenge to SC Heartbeat Law

On Thursday, Jan 27, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments regarding a South Carolina law protecting unborn children with detectable heartbeats.

The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act requires doctors to perform ultrasounds and check for a fetal heartbeat before an abortion attempt. If the ultrasound finds a detectable heartbeat, abortion would only be legal in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Additionally, the law requires that women be given the opportunity to see the ultrasound and hear the child's heartbeat if she chooses.

This bill was signed into law by Gov. Henry McMaster on Feb. 18, 2021, but it was quickly blocked after abortion businesses filed a lawsuit challenging it.

South Carolina Gov Henry McMaster argues that temporarily blocking the entire law while the court considers challenges is improper. In a brief to the 4th Circuit, he pointed out that other courts have upheld provisions that give women the opportunity to see ultrasounds and hear fetal heartbeats.

Click here to read more.

11th Circuit Agrees to Rehear Alabama Parental Consent Law

In June of 2021, a three-judge panel from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Alabama parental consent law was unconstitutional. On January 27, 2022, 10 out of the 11 judges from the full court of appeals agreed to hear the case en banc, meaning that all of the judges will vote on the court's decision.

The legislation being challenged is an amendment to Alabama's Parental Consent Act. The law required a minor to receive written permission from her parents to receive an abortion, but it allowed the minor to bypass that requirement if she received permission from a judge. In 2014, the law was amended so that a minor would request a judge's permission before an open court.

The requirement that minors request permission for a judicial bypass before an open court, rather than in a private setting, was deemed by the three-judge panel in 2021 as unconstitutional. They ruled that the amendment "created an undue burden" for minors seeking abortions.

The court did not set a date for oral arguments in its announcement.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Protestors Throw Smoke Bombs at Pro-Life Conference

Texas Right to Life, which has already experienced many instances of bomb threats and harassment following the passage of Texas's Heartbeat Act, had to deal with yet another event during an educational conference.

A group entered the conference carrying a sign and chanting. Shortly after they entered, one member lit two smoke bombs and tossed them at a group of students inside the building. Before leaving, the group vandalized property both inside and outside the hotel.

“Since spearheading the passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act and enforcement of the law beginning September 1, 2021, Texas Right to Life has been the target of vicious attacks, including three bomb threats within four months and circulating employees’ home addresses online,” the group wrote in a press release. “Texas Right to Life has taken proactive measures to ensure the safety of our supporters and activists since we became the target of violent messages due to the Texas Heartbeat Act.”

Click here to read more.

Texas Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Texas Heartbeat Law Next Month

After the US Supreme Court decided to uphold the Texas Heartbeat Act on procedural grounds, the legal battle over the law has continued on different terms. The Texas Supreme Court announced this week that it will hear oral arguments on Feb 24.

The issue before the Texas Supreme Court is “whether the state officials specified in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month have the power to enforce the abortion law.” The US Supreme Court's Dec 10th decision ruled that the legal challenge to the Texas Heartbeat Act could continue, but it could only target Texas licensing officials.

The Heartbeat Act prohibits the abortion of children with detectable heartbeats (six weeks gestation). It has remained in effect due to its unique enforcement method. Rather than being enforced primarily by the state, the Heartbeat Act is enforced by private individuals who file lawsuits against those who participate in the abortion of protected children. The law does include a provision that could revoke the medical licenses of those found guilty in these lawsuits, however. For this reason, the Supreme Court decided that licensing officials could be targeted in challenges to the Heartbeat Act.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Retiring after this Term

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
photo credit: Brookings Institution / Flickr

UPDATE: Justice Breyer has since confirmed the reports, saying that he will retire at the end of this term if a successor is nominated and confirmed. His current term will end in June or July.

President Biden said that he plans to announce a nominee by the end of February. Biden pledged during his campaign that he would nominate a black woman if given the opportunity to appoint a justice.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell congratulated Breyer for his retirement, but he also made the following statement about the upcoming nomination process:

“Looking ahead — the American people elected a Senate that is evenly split at 50-50. To the degree that President Biden received a mandate, it was to govern from the middle, steward our institutions, and unite America.

“The President must not outsource this important decision to the radical left. The American people deserve a nominee with demonstrated reverence for the written text of our laws and our Constitution.”

---Original article below---

 

According to a report by NBC News, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire from the court.

Breyer, who was appointed to the court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, is one of the court's pro-abortion members. He is also the court's oldest member at the age of 83. Breyer has been on the court for 27 years.

If Breyer retires, President Joe Biden would have his first opportunity to appoint a justice the Supreme Court. That person would almost certainly take a similar stance on abortion.

After President Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, many on the left have called for Breyer's retirement. Having him step down during Biden's presidency would prevent another event like that from shifting the balance of the Supreme Court.

Click here to read more.

Montana Calls on State Supreme Court to Overturn State Right to Abortion

The state of Montana is asking the state Supreme Court to reinstate three pro-life laws blocked by lower courts and overturn a 1999 opinion that created a right to abortion through an interpretation of the state constitution's right to privacy.

The three pro-life laws at stake include:

• a 20-week abortion ban
• a requirement that all women seeking abortion be given the opportunity to see ultrasound images of their children
• a bill that would regulate the abortion pill by requiring informed consent and prohibiting distribution through the mail

In a brief to the court, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen argued,

“All three laws unquestionably enhance the health and safety of Montana women. And they represent basic regulations of the practice of medicine—bread-and-butter exercises of [state government].But Planned Parenthood’s business is abortion, and these laws require modest changes to its business practices. So Plaintiffs asked the courts to do what they couldn’t through the legislative process—save them the trouble of providing better care to Montana women.”

AG Knudsen also argued that the court should completely overturn the 1999 ruling that found a right to abortion in the state constitution, writing,

 “In reversing the district court’s order, the state Supreme Court should also overrule the 1999 Armstrong precedent. This decision invented from whole cloth a state constitutional right to elective abortion even though the framers of the Montana Constitution were perfectly clear that decisions about abortion policy are to be firmly in the hands of the Legislature.”

Click here to read more. 

Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood Creates Call Center for Women Nationwide

Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood Clinic

Planned Parenthood's "mega-facility" that was secretly constructed in 2019 under a shell company will now have a national call center. The call center will be operated by Planned Parenthood and Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, and it aims to connect people across the country with resources (such as money and transportation) to get abortions.

Gov. JB Pritzker participated in a virtual press conference commemorating the new call center. “The services that it provides represent an important new frontier to secure abortion rights,” Pritzker said. “We’re incredibly proud that it’s here in Illinois. As governor, I will fight to make sure Illinois is a refuge for reproductive rights today, tomorrow and always.”

Much like how the goal of the Fairview Heights clinic was to market abortion to Missouri, where state legislation has significantly hampered the abortion industry, this new call center focuses on bringing abortion to areas across the nation.

Yamelsie Rodriguez, president of St. Louis Planned Parenthood (the only abortion facility in the state of Missouri) also gave a statement during the ceremony last Friday. “Together, we are breaking down the silos anti-abortion politicians have created, and proving that … with innovation and determination … we can secure a future with abortion access.”

Click here to read more.

Biden Again Commits to Abortion Support on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

In a statement on Jan 22, the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris pledged to defend abortion.

“The constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade nearly 50 years ago today is under assault as never before,” their statement reads. “It is a right we believe should be codified into law, and we pledge to defend it with every tool we possess.”

Biden and Harris criticized states which have enacted pro-life laws that restrict abortion. Texas last year passed its Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after the child's heartbeat is detectable. That law sees enforcement today, though it is set to be argued in court for months.

Mississippi's Gestational Age Act is currently being considered by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That law would ban abortion after 15 weeks gestation, but it was blocked by courts. Dobbs v. Jackson is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade's precedent, which prohibits states from enforcing laws that restrict abortion before a subjective "viability" standard of 24 weeks. Babies have survived birth as young as 21 weeks. It is unclear with the Supreme Court will decide at this point, but many believe that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade. This will turn the issue of abortion back to the states.

“These state restrictions constrain the freedom of all women,” Biden and Harris wrote. They argued that pro-life laws are “particularly devastating for those who have fewer options and fewer resources, such as those in underserved communities, including communities of color and many in rural areas.”

The argument that communities of color are "underserved" by abortion is outright false. Despite representing only 13.4% of the population in 2019, abortions among the black community accounted for 38.4% of total abortions that year. The Census Bureau estimates that over 60% of the country is white, but they only accounted for 33.4% of abortions in 2019. Abortion businesses such as Planned Parenthood often strategically position themselves to be accessible by black communities. Originally, this was an openly racist strategy by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger to reduce reproduction among black Americans. Planned Parenthood continues to profit by taking advantage of minority communities—and ending the lives of their children.

Biden and Harris committed to codifying a right to abortion by working with Congress to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. That law would establish a federal right to abortion, thereby nullifying many pro-life state laws. Without the help of pro-life Senators, however, pro-abortion legislators will not be able to pass anything resembling this bill.

Click here to read more.

IL House Human Services Committee to Consider Mandatory Vaccine Registry

IL State Rep Bob Morgan (D-58)

UPDATE: The House Human Services Committee did not call HB 4244 to a vote on Wednesday. As a result, the bill was moved to a subcommittee. It is possible for the bill to be brought up again, or it could linger in subcommittee status, never to be heard again.

---Original article below---

The IL House Human Services Committee is set to hold a hearing on Wed. Jan 26 on a bill that would require doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, and medical centers to put their patients' immunization history in a state database.

HB 4244, which was introduced by State Rep Bob Morgan (D-58), was originally going to have a hearing last Wednesday, but the committee did not have the quorum necessary to hold the hearing. Before it was rescheduled, over 14,000 people filed opposition slips on the Illinois General Assembly website.

Citizens who oppose the bill are concerned with how the state might use vaccine history information. One method would be through a vaccine passport system, such as the one used in New York.

Many pro-life advocates are concerned about this type of legislation. All currently available COVID-19 vaccines were developed and/or manufactured with the use of cells harvested from aborted babies. For that reason, some pro-life advocates choose not to take them as a matter of conscience. Vaccine passports and similar rules would create systems that would discriminate against them for making that choice.

Click here to read more.

March for Life Marks 49th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Pro-life advocates gathered in the nation's capital on Friday, Jan 21 to participate in the annual March for Life. This year's march marked the 49th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. This year, marchers had reason to believe that their goal to have the radically pro-abortion decision overturned might soon come true.

The country awaits the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which directly challenges Roe's precedent. If the court chooses to overturn Roe, which prevents states from restricting abortion before 24 weeks gestation, then the ability to regulate abortion will be returned to the states.

The March for Life organization recorded the full event with all of its speakers. Click here to view that video on YouTube.

Speakers at this year's event included:

• pro-life activist with Down syndrome, Katie Shaw
• Kirk Cameron
• Father Mike Schmitz.
• Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA)
• Toni McFadden, pro-life advocate and founder of Relationship Matters
• Lisa Robertson of Duck Dynasty 
• George Schuberg, a Christendom College student
• Archbishop Elpidophoros from the Orthodox Church
• Rev. Billy Graham’s granddaughter, Cissie Graham Lynch

Click here to read more.

South Dakota Sued over Abortion Pill Safety Rule

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood of South Dakota are suing the state over a new rule designed to increase the safety of the abortion pill. The rule requires that the pill only be taken while at a licensed abortion facility.

Abortion always results in the death of an innocent human being, but it can also pose significant health risks to women. Those risks include future infertility, hemorrhage, and potentially death. This rule is designed to mitigate those risks. By requiring that women take the abortion pill at an abortion facility, medical professionals will have the opportunity to correctly date her pregnancy and ensure that she does not have a pregnancy condition such as ectopic pregnancy. If her pregnancy is not correctly dated or she has an undiagnosed pregnancy condition, the health risk to the mother could be significantly increased.

“Chemical abortions are four times as likely to cause a woman getting an abortion to end up in an emergency room – and we have a duty to protect the lives of those women,” said Gov. Kristi Noem, who created the new rule. “I look forward to the day when the life of every unborn child is protected in South Dakota. Until then, South Dakotans will know that if a mother uses abortion pills to end her unborn child’s life, she will not get those pills from a stranger over the internet.”

Click here to read more.

Advocates Misleadingly Claim ERA Takes Effect Next Week

Supporters of the long-dead 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) are claiming that it will take effect on January 27, 2022. This amendment could be interpreted by judges to enshrine a right to abortion into the Constitution of the United States.

Luckily, the chance that courts will consider the amendment to be ratified is incredibly slim. As written, the ERA proposal expired on March 22, 1979. The Archivist of the US and the Justice Department both agree that the ratification deadline written into the amendment is binding.

“ERA backers have mounted an assault on the integrity of the constitutional amendment process itself, but they are unlikely to succeed,” said Douglas Johnson, director of NRLC’s ERA Project. “In 40 years, not a single federal judge has accepted a single element of the legal claims made by ERA-revival litigants, while 26 federal judges have rebuffed them. In 2021, federal district Judge Rudolph Contreras, appointed by President Obama, ruled that the ERA ratification deadline was valid and that it would have been ‘absurd’ for the Archivist of the U.S. to ignore the fact that the ERA expired decades before actions by the Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia legislatures.”

Click here to read more.

Texas AG Sues Planned Parenthood over $10 Million in Medicaid Reimbursements

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Planned Parenthood and its Texas affiliates to recover $10 million in taxpayer funds paid out by Texas's Medicaid program.

Texas initially filed to end Planned Parenthood's designation as a Medicaid provider in 2016. Planned Parenthood attempted to stay on Medicaid by filing multiple lawsuits against the state, but their attempts ultimately failed in February 2021.

Planned Parenthood still took Medicaid payments during the years they spent challenging Texas in court. The state now wants the abortion giant to pay back those funds. Texas argues that “Planned Parenthood knowingly and improperly avoided its obligation to repay money owed to the Texas Medicaid program.” According to Paxton, Planned Parenthood's actions are a violation of The Medicare Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA).

“It is unthinkable that Planned Parenthood would continue to take advantage of funding knowing they were not entitled to keep it,” Paxton said. “I will not allow them to benefit from this abhorrent conduct after they were caught violating medical standards and lying to law enforcement.”

Click here to read more.

New California Budget Proposal Would Pay Abortionists' Student Loans

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a state budget proposal this month that includes $20 million to pay the student loans of abortionists and medical students who pledge to become abortionists. This money will incentivize young people to enter an industry that ends the lives of innocent human beings for profit.

Jodi Hicks, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, issued a statement praising Newsom's proposal. She also noted that they expect even more support from California. The state is considered by many to be the most pro-abortion state in the country.

“The budget put forth today by Governor Newsom is another step toward leading the nation in prioritizing sexual and reproductive health care, including access to abortion,” Hicks's statement reads. “This budget proposal provides flexibility and opportunity for increasing access to abortion; however, these investments are only part of what we must do if California is going to continue to lead in the reproductive health, rights, and justice space.”

Click here to read more.

NRLC Tells Representatives to Oppose Deceptive "Freedom to Vote Act"

In a letter to legislators in the US House of Representatives, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has asked them to oppose HR 5746, otherwise (deceptively) known as the "Freedom to Vote Act."

The law creates will regulate communication by organizations that "can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for election for Federal office." Such communication will be considered "the functional equivalent of express advocacy."

This is problematic for organizations that provide commentary on the votes made by elected officials. As the NRLC writes in its letter to legislators, "there is little that an organization could say by way of commentary on the votes or positions taken by an incumbent member of Congress that would not fall within this expansive definition, in the eyes of some 'reasonable person.'"

Additionally, the bill would create record-keeping and reporting requirements. It would threaten the ability of private citizens to donate to organizations such as the NRLC without having their identifying information made public. Donors who contribute to organizations taking stances on contentious issues could find themselves subjected to harassment, threats, or physical attacks by those who disagree.

Click here to read the NRLC's letter to Representatives.

ACLU Sues to Block Ohio Law Respecting the Bodies of Aborted Children

An Ohio law requiring the burial or cremation of aborted children is set to go into effect next month, but the ACLU has sued in an attempt to have the law overturned.

The law allows women who have abortions to choose burial or cremation for their aborted children. If they do not choose, abortion businesses must make the decision. Abortion businesses that do not bury or cremate aborted children can face a first-degree misdemeanor charge punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The ACLU is suing on behalf of five Ohio abortion businesses. In their argument, they attempt to dehumanize unborn children and claim that compliance with this law will be too costly for abortion businesses.

“The law and the implementing rules are extremely burdensome and expensive to comply with – impossible in many regards – and vague and unclear as to how to comply,” ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson told WCPN. “It’s very, very costly to provide cremation or burial for a small collection of cells. This law applies even to a blastocyte or to a small number of cells or to an embryo.”

In an interview for the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis strongly advocated in favor of the law, and he slammed opponents for their lack of respect for the innocent human beings killed in abortions.

“SB 27 simply dignifies the life of a child who died because of an abortion and provides a proper burial for that child. The ACLU will do everything in its power to sterilize abortion and attempt to hide the fact that a successful abortion leads to the death of an innocent child. Planned Parenthood would rather have all aborted babies carted off to landfills in metal containers. The inhumanity of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood knows no boundaries. Ohio Right to Life is confident that this compassionate law will withstand court scrutiny.”

Click here to read more.

Indiana Abortion Restrictions to Stay in Place While SCOTUS Considers Dobbs

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said that it would delay ruling on several pro-life Indiana laws until after the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case is a challenge to Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which protects babies from abortion after they reach 15 weeks gestation. A decision is expected in June.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued a ruling in August of last year that allowed some of Indiana's pro-life provisions to be enforced, but it placed injunctions against others. One provision that was allowed prohibits non-doctors from performing first-trimester aspiration abortions. Five provisions are currently being blocked, however:

• a ban against non-doctors from prescribing abortion pills
• a requirement that second-trimester abortions only occur at hospitals or ambulatory surgery centers
• a requirement that preabortion counseling occur in-person
• a ban against the use of telemedicine to prescribe and distribute abortion pills
• a requirement that women receive in-person examinations before having abortions

Click here to read more.

DC Agency Proposes Database to Track Employees who File Religious Exemptions

A small government agency in DC is proposing a database to track its employees who file religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines. Many are concerned that this policy could serve as a test for a nationwide policy that would create lists of Americans who object to COVID-19 vaccines.

Such lists would likely contain many pro-life advocates. Many pro-life people object to currently available COVID-19 vaccines on the basis that they were developed and/or manufactured with the use of cell lines harvested from aborted babies.

The Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) for the District of Columbia published its proposal in the Federal Register on Tuesday. It would create an “Employee Religious Exception Request Information System.”

According to the proposal, “This system of records maintains personal religious information collected in response to religious accommodation requests for religious exception from the federally mandated vaccination requirement in the context of a public health emergency or similar health and safety incident, such as a pandemic, epidemic, natural disaster or national or regional emergency.”

The proposal further reads, “The system of records will assist the Agency in the collection, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information collected and maintained by the Agency.”

Sarah Parshall Perry and GianCarlo Canaparo, legal fellows for The Heritage Foundation, theorized in an article for the Daily Signal that “Likely, the Biden administration is using it to stealth test a policy it intends to roll out across the whole government.”

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Blocks Biden Vaccine Mandate for Businesses

The Supreme Court on Jan 13 blocked the Biden administration's rule that would have required private businesses to enforce vaccine-or-test mandates on their employees. At the same time, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration could enforce a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on health care workers.

Vaccine mandates are particularly troubling for pro-life advocates, many of whom do not want to take the currently available COVID-19 vaccines. All of these vaccines were developed and/or manufactured with the use of cell lines harvested from aborted babies.

The court ruled 6-3 against the rule that would have required vaccine-or-test policies at all private businesses with 100 or more employees. The conservative justices voted in the majority on that decision.

The vaccine requirement for healthcare workers was allowed in a 5-4 decision. In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices.

The mandate for businesses would have been enforced under OSHA, which the majority ruled did not have the power to impose such a mandate.

"Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided," the majority wrote. "...The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures."

The mandate for health care workers, on the other hand, will be enforced through the authority granted by the Social Security Act. That law authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “make and publish such rules and regulations” that “may be necessary to the efficient administration” of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

"The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it," the majority wrote in its decision for the health care worker case. "At the same time such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have."

Click here to read more.

South Dakota Legislators Approve Abortion Pill Restrictions

Legislators in South Dakota last week approved abortion pill restrictions initiated by Gov. Kristi Noem's executive order in September. These restrictions will protect women by limiting the abortion pill's distribution to licensed abortion facilities.

This order came as a response to the FDA's announcement that it will end regulations that used to limit the distribution of the abortion pill. Those regulations similarly limited the distribution of the abortion pill. Without the FDA restrictions, it will be legal to send abortion pills by sending them through the mail.

The FDA regulations sought to protect women from some of the risks associated with the abortion pill. Without them, women can receive prescriptions without first being examined by a medical professional. This is important because medical professionals can accurately date a pregnancy and diagnose any conditions, such as ectopic pregnancy. If the child's gestational age is past the range at which it is safe to use the abortion pill, or if an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, then they would know not to use the abortion pill regimen. If a woman takes the abortion pill regimen with an ectopic pregnancy or late-term child could experience life-threatening injuries such as hemorrhaging.

“Chemical abortions are four times as likely to cause a woman getting an abortion to end up in an emergency room – and we have a duty to protect the lives of those women,” Noem said in a statement after legislators approved the restrictions. “I look forward to the day when the life of every unborn child is protected in South Dakota. Until then, South Dakotans will know that if a mother uses abortion pills to end her unborn child’s life, she will not get those pills from a stranger over the internet.”

Click here to read more.