Wisconsin Court Rules Pro-Life Law Does Not Prohibit "Consensual Abortions"

On December 5, a Wisconsin circuit judge ruled that Wisconsin's 1849 law protecting the unborn from abortion “does not apply to consensual abortions but to feticide.”

The pro-life law came into effect after Roe v. Wade was repealed last summer, but it has been challenged legally since then. The law states, “any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.” The law contains an exception for when physicians deem an abortion necessary to save the mother's life. Otherwise, its effect is stated in fairly plain language.

Despite this, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Diane Schlipper wrote in her decision, “The court declares Wis. Stat. § 940.04 does not prohibit abortions.”

Planned Parenthood quickly announced plans to resume abortions at a clinic in Sheboygan County, where Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski had promised to enforce the law previously.

Urmanski told CNA on December 7, “As I have previously stated, I believe that, properly interpreted, the statute at issue prohibits performing abortions (including consensual abortions) unless the exception for abortions necessary to save the life of the mother applies.”

“To be clear, I disagree with and intend to appeal the decision,” Urmanski continued. “In my view, the statute plainly applies to abortions and, while it may be that the citizens of the state of Wisconsin would be better served by a different statute, I do not believe it is my job or the role of the courts to make that determination. It is an issue for the Legislature and the governor to resolve.”

Click here to read more.

Virginia, Montana Among States Considering Abortion Constitutional Amendments

Virginia and Montana are among the growing number of states that could see a right to abortion codified in their state constitutions.

Last month, the Democrat majority in Virginia began the process of introducing a constitutional amendment that would codify a right to abortion in the state constitution. Virginia effectively allows abortion at all stages of pregnancy, but it is not currently a constitutional right. The new amendment would change that.

In a statement on X, the Virginia GOP wrote, “Today, after running an entire campaign on ‘maintaining the status quo,’ Virginia Democrats introduced a slate of radical bills that would upend existing law and turn our Commonwealth into a failed left-wing state like California or New York.”

“Their very first order of business was to introduce an amendment that would enshrine a right to unrestricted late-term abortion-on-demand in the Virginia Constitution. Despite Democrat House leader [Don Scott] explicitly telling the Virginia-Pilot that ‘the goal is for [abortion] laws to remain the same’ before the election, Democrats are now seeking to make abortion at any stage of pregnancy legal for any reason – a far more radical policy than the existing limit of 26 weeks.”

In Montana, pro-abortion activists filed a proposed amendment that would prohibit "the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability."

Montana currently recognizes a constitutional right to abortion, but it is based on the Montana Supreme Court's interpretation that the state's right to privacy implies a right to abortion. The proposed amendment would deprive the unborn of their right to life even if the Montana Supreme Court changes its stance.

Pro-abortion activists in Florida, Maryland, and New York are also pushing for pro-abortion constitutional amendments after Ohio voters passed a ballot measure creating a right to abortion.

Granite City Abortion Clinic Hospitalizes Three Women Within a Week

Ambulance outside HCW receiving post-abortion
patient for emergency transport
photo via Operation Rescue

Within the span of a week, Hope Clinic for Women (HCW) in Granite City, Illinois hospitalized at least three women.

The emergencies were reported by pro-life onlookers to Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization dedicated to documenting medical emergencies at abortion businesses throughout the country. During the past several months, Illinois abortion businesses have garnered the overwhelming majority of emergency reports on Operation Rescue's website.

Details from emergencies at Illinois abortion businesses have become more difficult for Operation Rescue to obtain. Abortion clinics are careful about what they say to 911 operators to prevent information about abortion injuries from reaching the public, and local governments are less cooperative with FOIA requests for dispatch reports.

Operation Rescue was able to obtain 911 call recordings for the three emergencies taking place on November 3, 7, and 9. Click here to listen to those recordings.

On November 3, an HCW employee called 911 to report that a 35-year-old woman was "possibly" having "a seizure." The worker requested an ambulance to transport the patient to Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri "for observation." Barnes is a level 1 trauma center where HCW frequently sends seriously injured patients.

Operation Rescue suggested that the seizures could have been caused by incorrect administration of anesthesia or bleeding from uterine perforation.

The emergency on November 7 involved a 40-year-old patient. The HCW employee who called 911 told the dispatcher that she had "some extra bleeding" after a "procedure." The employee again requested an ambulance to transport the patient to Barnes's emergency room.

"Extra bleeding" after an abortion could only be defined as hemorrhage. The most frequent cause of hemorrhage after an abortion would be uterine perforation. In addition to hemorrhage (which is life-threatening on its own), uterine perforation can lead to serious infection.

The November 9 emergency is the most ambiguous of the three. An HCW employee called 911 to request an ambulance to transfer a 21-year-old patient to Barnes. The employee said that the patient was "post-procedure" with stable vital signs, but she needed to to Barnes for "further evaluation."

When the 911 dispatcher asked if they needed any special equipment, the employee requested ACLS, otherwise known as Advanced Cardiac Life Support. This equipment is used when a patient is at risk of cardiac arrest.

It is not known whether these patients survived or if they sustained life-long injuries such as infertility.

“We hope that through our work people, many see the myth of ‘safe abortion’ for what it is: a lie invented by people who make huge profits out of killing innocent lives and maiming women,” said Operation Rescue’s President, Troy Newman. 

In this dreadful process the Abortion Cartel calls ‘healthcare,’ unsuspecting women are hurt and some of them even die. We pray that one day every state in our nation may see through these lies, and save women and their babies from such horror and pain.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Sues Washington for Unconstitutional Investigation

On November 30, two pro-life pregnancy resource centers filed a lawsuit against the Washinton state attorney general for conducting an unwarranted spontaneous investigation into their legal activities.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson's investigation requested that Obria Group and Obria Medical Groups PNW answer various questions and provide documents regarding legal activities spanning back to January 1, 2010. Ferguson's office claims it is conducting a civil investigation into "possible" violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act.

The non-profits, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argue that the investigation does not appear to be based on a complaint or any substantive evidence of wrongdoing. They argue that Ferguson is punishing the organizations for holding opposing political views.

“The U.S. Constitution protects Obria Group and Obria Medical Groups PNW’s right to freely speak their beliefs, freely exercise their faith, freely associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide services in a caring and compassionate environment to women and men facing difficult pregnancy circumstances,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tim Garrison. “Our clients have already expended exorbitant time and financial resources trying to comply with the unreasonable demands made by Washington’s attorney general and we urge the court to swiftly halt his unlawful actions.”

A press release from Alliance Defending Freedom further states that Ferguson requested documents that are unrelated to the investigation's stated purpose and go beyond the statute of limitations.

This political prosecution of pro-life pregnancy centers is reminiscent of Illinois SB1909, which threatens pro-life pregnancy centers with spontaneous investigations at the Illinois Attorney General's whim. That law, signed by pro-abortion Gov. JB Pritzker (D) in July, was temporarily blocked pending the result of a lawsuit.

Click here to read more.

Ohio Wins Injunction Against Biden HHS Title X Rule

On November 30, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Ohio an injunction against the Biden administration's rule routing federal tax dollars to abortion organizations.

The court ruled 2-1 in Ohio et al. v. Becerra et al.that HHS rules governing the distribution of Title X family planning funds violated Title X law. The court wrote in its opinion that the HHS cannot permit taxpayer funding for family planning programming that provides abortion.

The case originates from a 2021 lawsuit filed by Ohio and 12 other states seeking a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration's rule changes. After the states were denied relief at a lower court, the Sixth Circuit granted an injunction exclusively to Ohio, not the co-plaintiff states. The court said that only Ohio had demonstrated a loss of Title X funds warranting an injunction.

A press release from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's office states that "Ohio's Department of Health's grant money decreased significantly after the rule changes allowed Planned Parenthood to re-enter the Title X program."

“Whatever your opinion on abortion as a moral matter,” Yost said, “the court vindicated Congress’ considered judgment that tax dollars should not fund programs that use abortion as a method of family planning.”

Activists Push Abortion Rights Amendment for Arkansas Constitution

This November 27, an Arkansas activist group named "For AR People" announced plans to push for a constitutional amendment creating a right to abortion. It is pushing the amendment through a new sub-group called "Arkansans for Limited Government."

The proposal, titled the "Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment," would prevent the state from protecting the unborn before 18 weeks gestation, if the child was conceived in rape, if the child was conceived in incest, if the child is diagnosed with a fatal fetal anomaly, or if the abortion is deemed necessary to protect a mother's life or health.

It should be noted that similar language used in other legislation is interpreted to create a right to abortion at all gestational ages for any reason. This is because abortionists can use their own subjective judgment to deem an abortion necessary to protect a mother's health, including her mental health.

Further, the proposal would prevent Arkansas from protecting the unborn if the law does not "protect the health of the individual seeking access, does not infringe on the individual's decision making, and is consistent with widely accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine."

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin rejected the proposal's ballot title and language on grounds that it was ambiguous. Griffin's opinion took issue with the proposal's use of the words "access" and "health," which he said lacked clarity. Additionally, the ballot language failed to describe its impact on existing laws, including Arkansas' Constitutional Amendment 68.

Amendment 68 directly contradicts the goals of pro-abortion activists by stating “The policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution.”

Pro-life activists will need to revise the proposal before resubmitting it for approval. After it is accepted by the attorney general's office, activists will have to gather roughly 100,000 signatures by July 2024 to ensure it appears on the 2024 ballot.

Click here to read more.

US House Bill Would Defund Planned Parenthood

US Rep Roy Aderholt (R-AL)

A spending bill for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education is moving through the House of Representatives. Among other things, the bill would eliminate Title X grants to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.

House Resolution 5894, which passed out of committee earlier this month, would also prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding post-graduation medical training unless the program made abortion training "opt-in" rather than "opt-out."

“The bill maintains the longstanding Hyde amendment to ensure that taxpayer funds are not used for abortion-on-demand, and that no one is forced to participate in an abortion or refer for one under federal programs,” said US Rep Roy Aderholt (R-AL), chief sponsor of the legislation. “The bill also makes sure that taxpayer funds are not used to circumvent state laws restricting access to abortion and ensures that federal research funds are not used on human fetal tissue obtained from an elective abortion.”

Many pro-lifers are considering this to be a major test of Speaker Mike Johnson's ability to pass pro-life bills. He recently replaced former speaker Kevin McCarthy after he was ousted from the position.

If HR 5894 passes, legislators will need to reconcile it with Senate spending bills that don't include protections for the unborn.

Click here to read more.

CDC Releases Abortion Statistics for 2021

This month, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released its abortion surveillance report using statistics for 2021.

The CDC's annual report cadence always analyzes data gathered from two years prior. It uses data voluntarily submitted by state health departments across the country. Not all states collect or report data to the CDC, but the statistics are still useful to show trends within the abortion industry. California, Maryland, and New Hampshire have not reported data since 1998.

The latest report shows an increase of over 5,000 abortions from 2020 to 2021. This comes despite not containing statistics from New Jersey, which reported almost 23,000 abortions in 2020.

According to the report, there were 11.6 abortions for every thousand women of reproductive age (15-44). That is the highest number since 2015 when the statistic was 11.8.

Additionally, the report found that there were 204 abortions for every thousand live births. This is the highest number since 2012 when the statistic was 207.

Over 90% of abortions occurred during the first trimester. 44.8% occurred at six weeks or less. Additionally, 56% of all abortions are completed via the abortion pill regimen.

Other notable statistics showed that black women chose abortion at roughly four times the rate of white women, and 87.3% of all women who chose abortion were unmarried.

This report does not reflect any changes resulting from the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in June of 2022. Future reports will hopefully show that this groundbreaking decision saved thousands of unborn children from abortion.

At the same time, abortion tourism and pro-abortion ballot initiatives can undercut this victory and cause more deaths. Pro-life advocates need to be active in both political and cultural spaces so that women and families are excited and empowered to choose life.

Click here to read more.

Nevada Judge Rejects Petition for Pro-Abortion Ballot Initiative

On November 21, Nevada Judge James T. Russell in Carson City District Court ruled that a pro-abortion ballot initiative hoping to embed abortion rights into the state constitution is too broad and misleads voters. His ruling would prevent pro-abortion groups from moving forward with the petition, but proponents have already announced plans to appeal.

The Nevadans for Reproductive Rights political action committee filed the petition to create several "reproductive rights" in the state constitution on September 14. If successful, the measure would create a right to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, and abortion care.

Much like Ohio's issue 1, the ballot proposal lists several non-controversial items at the beginning before mentioning abortion at the end.

“This is probably the clearest case I have seen that I think there is a violation of the single-subject rule,” Russell said, according to KOLO-TV Reno. “I’ve seen a lot of them over the years and in respect to this particular matter, there are too many subjects. Not all of which are functionally related to each other.”

Jason Guinasso with the Coalition for Parents and Children argued in court that the petition also creates an unfunded mandate that would cost Nevada taxpayers. That would certainly be the case if the "reproductive rights" contained in the proposal would require Nevada taxpayers to pay for abortions and other procedures.

If Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom is successful in its appeal, it hopes to put the question to voters on the November 2024 ballot. It will need to collect just over 100,000 signatures by June to do so.

Click here to read more.

South Carolina Supreme Court Denies Appeal to Block Heartbeat Law

On November 14, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously denied an appeal by Planned Parenthood to enjoin the state's Fetal Heartbeat and Protection Act.

The South Carolina Supreme Court had already ruled 4-1 in August that the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection Act is constitutional, but Planned Parenthood and the Greenville Women's Clinic followed up with a second strategy. The abortion businesses asked the court to take "original jurisdiction" to define "fetal heartbeat" in South Carolina's law. They also asked that the court block the law's enforcement while the case is being litigated.

"Original jurisdiction" means that the South Carolina Supreme Court would agree to take the case without going through the lower courts first. The denial means that the abortion businesses will first need to file a case in the circuit court.

They argued that the fetal heart is not developed until the ninth week of gestation, therefore, the South Carolina Supreme Court should decide whether a less developed fetal heart is still a fetal heart. The heartbeat law protects unborn children from abortion when their fetal heartbeats become detectable (around six weeks gestation).

Click here to read more.

Michigan Gov Signs Law Repealing Pro-life Protections

Michigan Gov Gretchen Whitmer (D)

On Nov 21, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed legislation repealing a variety of pro-life protections, including the state's prohibition against partial-birth abortion.

The new law is titled the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), much like a pro-abortion law signed by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in 2019.

In addition to repealing Michigan's partial-birth abortion ban, Protect Life Michigan wrote on X that the RHA will repeal laws regarding, “abortion reporting, abortion complication reporting, clinic licensing, humane disposal of fetal remains, priority funding for family planning dollars away from abortion providers, and the prohibition of pregnant and parenting student services offices referring for abortion.”

The law further allows people to file civil lawsuits if they believe someone has infringed upon their "right to reproductive freedom."

Some pro-abortion proposals that were cut from the final version of the RHA would have required Michigan taxpayers to fund abortion through the state's Medicaid program, repealed a 24-hour waiting period law, and removed screening for coercion.

“Today, Michigan law was changed to oppress more children and harm more women,” Protect Life Michigan wrote. “Michigan women and children deserve BETTER than the discrimination the Reproductive Health Act has brought to the state.”

Michigan's RHA is set to take effect in February 2024.

Click here to read more.

Happy Thanksgiving! We are Thankful for Life!

Happy Thanksgiving from the IFRL!

Idaho Appeals to Supreme Court in Biden's Challenge to Pro-life Law

In response to a 9th Circuit ruling that Idaho's Defense of Life Act violates federal law, Idaho's Attorney General filed an emergency application for stay pending appeal.

The Biden Administration's lawsuit against Idaho claims that the Defense of Life Act contradicts the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Idaho's law protects unborn children from abortion with several exceptions, including when the abortion is deemed necessary to save the mother's life. EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for conditions jeopardizing an individual's health.

The 9th Circuit ruled in October that Idaho's Defense of Life Act prohibits medical treatment that is legally required by EMTALA. The Biden administration argued that EMTALA requires abortions in violation of the Defense of Life Act if an emergency room doctor thinks its appropriate, regardless of whether the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.

Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Cooper & Kirk assisted the Idaho Attorney General's Office in filing the emergency motion.

“Hospitals—especially emergency rooms—are centers for preserving life. The government has no business transforming them into abortion clinics,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the Center for Life and Regulatory Practice. “Emergency room physicians can, and do, treat ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. But elective abortion is not life-saving care—it ends the life of the unborn child—and the government has no authority to override Idaho’s law barring these procedures. We urge the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s injunction and allow Idaho emergency rooms to fulfill their primary function—saving lives.”

Attorneys defending the Defense of Life Act in the emergency motion argue, “EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.”

ADF attorneys are litigating a similar case against the Biden administration in defense of Texas's Heartbeat Act.

Click here to read more.

Viral British Infant Dies after UK Orders Removal of Life Support

Indi Gregory, an 8-month-old British infant suffering from a mitochondrial disease, died last week after the UK government removed life support without parental consent. This happened despite the Italian government granting Gregeroy citizenship in a bid to have her transferred to receive care.

Gregory was receiving life-sustaining treatment on a ventilator at Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, England when the UK's high court ruled that it was in the child's "best interests" to be removed from life support against her parents' wishes.

On Nov 6, the Italian government granted Gregory Italian citizenship and agreed to cover her medical treatment at the Vatican’s pediatric hospital, Bambino Gesù.

Despite repeated appeals, the UK courts refused to allow Gregory's parents to have her taken to Rome for treatment. On Nov 10, the UK courts ruled that Gregory's life support be removed "immediately."

The story of Gregory's care under the British healthcare system drew a lot of attention online, with many Italians branding the UK as "Death Island"

Click here to read more.

Ohio Legislators Announce Plans to Fight Abortion Amendment

On Nov 10, pro-life leaders and legislators in Ohio announced their plans to address Issue 1 and protect life.

The "yes" vote for Issue 1 on Ohio's Nov 8 ballot ratified an amendment to the state constitution that was designed to create a right to abortion.

“Foreign billionaires don't get to make Ohio laws,” said Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), pointing to millions from billionaires outside America that helped fund Issue 1. Gross added, “This is foreign election interference, and it will not stand.”

“Issue 1 doesn't repeal a single Ohio law, in fact, it doesn't even mention one,” said Representative Bill Dean (R-Xenia). “The amendment’s language is dangerously vague and unconstrained, and can be weaponized to attack parental rights or defend rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.” 

A press release from Gross's office states, "Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides."

Click here to read more.

American Medical Association Rejects Proposal to Support Assisted Suicide

During a meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates, the AMA rejected two resolutions that would have changed the organization's stance regarding assisted suicide.

The AMA House of Delegates met from Nov 10-14 to discuss a variety of proposals, two of which would have ended the organization's official stance opposing physician-assisted suicide. One proposal would have adopted a "neutral" stance, while the other would have adopted a stance supporting the practice. Delegates ultimately voted down both proposals.

The AMA's code of ethics continues to state,

"Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.

Physicians:

• Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.
• Must respect patient autonomy.
• Must provide good communication and emotional support.
• Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control."

Notably, the AMA also voted down a resolution that would have changed the terminology from "assisted suicide" to the sterilized language "Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD)."

"The take home message is that medical professionals, young physicians and medical students must be involved in the AMA," said Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Click here to read more.

27 US Senators Demand DOD End Abortion Travel Funding

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin

On Nov 13, 27 US Senators signed a letter demanding that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin end the Department of Defense's policy to pay the travel expenses for military members and their dependents who travel away from pro-life states to get abortions.

The Department of Defense announced the taxpayer funding of abortion travel expenses not long after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision allowed states to regulate abortion through their elected representatives. Austin argued in support of the policy that pro-life state laws created “readiness, recruiting, and retention implications for the force.”

This came after President Biden directed the entirety of the executive branch to find ways to promote abortion.

The senators' letter reads,

"All legislative power is vested in Congress, and the Executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the law. While the Department may issue regulations, it can only do so under the laws authorized and enacted by Congress. But, Congress never authorized the Department to expend funds to facilitate abortions and, until the Policy was issued, the military never facilitated abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term..."

The letter further notes that only 12 women have used the policy since its inception at the beginning of this year, undercutting his argument that pro-life laws posed a threat to recruiting and retention.

Of the 27 Senators who signed the letter, all were Republicans.

Click here to read more.

Woman Charged with Threatening to Kill Federal Judge Who Ruled Against FDA Abortion Pill Approval

On November 8, a Florida woman named Alice Marie Pence was arrested on charges that she threatened to kill U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge in Texas who issued an injunction suspending the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

Since Kacsmaryk's ruling in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration the injunction was suspended pending Supreme Court review. Pro-life physicians and advocates argued that the FDA did not follow the proper procedures when approving mifepristone in 2000. The FDA failed to respond to the official complaint process and stonewalled physicians for over 20 years; finally culminating in this lawsuit.

Pence's alleged death threat against Kacsmaryk was made shortly after hearings in the case were scheduled, but before any rulings were issued. She is charged with threatening interstate communication and influencing a federal officer by threat. She is scheduled to make an initial appearance before a judge on November 22, 2023.

Though Judge Kacsmaryk is not named in the DOJ's indictment, he is the only federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, where Pence made the threatening phone call.

Click here to read more.

Right to Life of Michigan Files Lawsuit Challenging Michigan Right to Abortion

On November 8, the first anniversary of a Michigan constitutional amendment creating a right to abortion in the state, Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) announced that a coalition of pro-life advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the amendment.

“Earlier this morning, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed challenging the constitutionality of central elements of Proposal 3,” said Barbara Listing, President of RLM. “The provisions asserted to be unconstitutional under federal law threaten legal protections for pregnant women seeking healthcare, the rights of physicians to care for patients, and the rights of parents already under attack on many fronts. At issue is also the sweeping disenfranchisement both of Michigan voters and of the authority of the legislature in the days and years ahead.

American Freedom Law Center and co-counsel Great Lakes Justice Center filed the complaint on behalf of the coalition, which includes pro-life physicians, legislators, parents, and a pregnancy resource center.

The lawsuit asserts that Michigan's pro-abortion constitutional amendment violates the US Constitution on several grounds:

1. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment by exempting pregnant women from protections afforded to other classes.

2. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving parents of the right to be involved in their minor children's decisions regarding reproduction.

3. It violates the First Amendment by overriding religious objections to endorsing, providing, or supporting procedures involving "reproduction.

4. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving preborn babies, babies born during failed abortions, and partially born babies of the right to life without due process.

5. It violates the US Constitution's Guarantee Clause by creating a super-right to "reproductive freedom" immune from legislative action. The coalition argues that this interferes with citizens' right to a republican form of government.

Click here to read more.

Mark Houck Sues Biden DOJ over Political Arrest

Mark Houck with his wife and seven children
photo via Thomas More Society

On November 6, pro-life activist Mark Houck and his wife sued the Biden Department of Justice over Houck's shocking arrest during an FBI early-morning raid on his home last year.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the Biden administration responded by emphasizing enforcement of pro-abortion policies. This included the enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, with which Houck was charged.

In September of 2022, over a dozen FBI agents with guns drawn arrested Houck on FACE Act charges.

Houck is seeking $1.1 million for malicious prosecution, retaliatory prosecution, false arrest, abuse of process, and assault.

His wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, is seeking $3.25 million in damages for emotional distress to herself and the family's seven children. The complaint states that stress following Mark's arrest caused her to suffer multiple miscarriages and infertility.

The Biden DOJ charged Houck with violating the FACE Act for an altercation he had with an abortion clinic escort in 2021. While Houck was offering support as a sidewalk counselor, the escort repeatedly harassed Houck's 12-year-old son. When the escort refused to leave the child alone, Houck responded by pushing the escort away. The civil case filed against Houck immediately after the incident was thrown out of court after the escort failed to show up for court dates.

If found guilty of the FACE Act charges, Houck would have faced 11 years in prison and a fine of $350,000. A jury found him not guilty in January, and he has been able to return to his family.

“This lawsuit will send a strong message to the DOJ that the United States of America does not belong to [Attorney General] Merrick Garland or the FBI; it belongs to all Americans, despite our many disagreements on different issues,” said Shawn Carney, president of the pro-life organization 40 Days for Life, which is representing Houck. “We all believe that we should have the right to free speech and be protected from unlawful infringement by our own government.”

Earlier this year, Houck also announced that he is running for Congress in Pennsylvania's 1st Congressional District.

Click here to read more.