NJ Attorney General Sued for Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Center

A pro-life non-profit in New Jersey has filed suit against the state attorney general for targeting the center with an unwarranted investigation.

Attorney General Matthew Platikin (D) targeted First Choice Women's Resource Centers with a subpoena requesting a wide range of documents regarding its practices. If the organization does not produce the extensive documentation requested, it will face judicial sanctions. The attorney general did not reference any substantive evidence of wrongdoing before issuing the subpoena.

First Choice Women's Resource Centers serve New Jersey women by providing free ultrasounds, STD testing, and pregnancy consultations.

Alliance Defending Freedom  (ADF) is representing First Choice in its lawsuit against Platkin.

“It’s unlawful for New Jersey’s attorney general to use the authority of his office to harm those with whom he disagrees,” said ADF Senior Counsel Lincoln Wilson. “Attorney General Platkin has aligned himself with Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion mission and even enlisted its help to target pro-life pregnancy centers like our client First Choice. The U.S. Constitution protects First Choice Ministry’s right to freely speak its beliefs, freely exercise its faith, freely associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to women and men facing difficult pregnancy circumstances.”

Attorneys with the Thomas More Society recently defeated Illinois SB 1909 in court for similar reasons. Pro-lifers and their organizations have constitutional rights under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protecting them from political prosecution.

Click here to read more.

Abortion Advocacy Groups Received $2 Billion in Federal Funds over Three Years

On December 12, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report showing that the abortion industry received almost $1.89 billion in federal taxpayer dollars between 2019 and 2021.

The overwhelming majority of those funds, $1.78 billion, went to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The remainder went to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, MSI Reproductive Choices, and "four domestic regional organizations."

Most of this funding came from the Department of Health and Human Services or the United States Agency for International Development. Payments to Planned Parenthood came in the form of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Planned Parenthood also received federal loans that were forgiven under the Paycheck Protection Program, which provided relief for businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Congressional Pro-Life Caucus released a review of the data shortly after its release. The caucus noted that while federal tax dollars cannot directly pay for abortions, “neither the Hyde nor Helms amendments limit funding for abortion providers. Federal funding of abortion providers expands the reach and influence of abortion advocates, giving taxpayers’ stamp of approval to the agenda of abortion advocates.”

Click here to read more.

US Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Abortion Pill Case

On December 13, the US Supreme Court agreed to consider cases regarding the federal regulation of abortion pills.

The Supreme Court is consolidating two abortion pill cases to hear next year: F.D.A. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Both cases involve a coalition of pro-life physicians challenging the FDA approval and regulation of mifepristone.

Mifepristone kills unborn children by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone. Progesterone helps facilitate the flow of oxygen and nutrients from a mother's body to her unborn children. After a mother takes mifepristone, her child will likely die of starvation and asphyxiation. After the child dies, the mother will take misoprostol to induce labor and expel the deceased child.

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 under President Bill Clinton's administration. One of the arguments used by the pro-life physicians is that the approval process Clinton used to fast-track the approval of mifepristone is intended for the approval of life-threatening diseases. The physicians filed an official petition with the FDA in 2002, but bureaucracy stonewalled them for decades.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wrote in his April 2023 ruling,

"Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review — until now. Before Plaintiffs filed this case, FDA ignored their petitions for over sixteen years, even though the law requires an agency response within '180 days of receipt of the petition.' But FDA waited 4,971 days to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ first petition and 994 days to adjudicate the second. Had FDA responded to Plaintiffs’ petitions within the 360 total days allotted, this case would have been in federal court decades earlier. Instead, FDA postponed and procrastinated for nearly 6,000 days."

Kacsmaryk's ruling would have suspended the availability of mifepristone, but that ruling was overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court will only consider FDA regulatory changes made during the Obama and Biden administrations that allowed abortion pills to be used later in pregnancy and be mailed directly to customers without visiting a doctor in person.

The in-person visit helps ensure a mother's safety by determining the age of the preborn child and checking for ectopic pregnancy. Attempting abortion via pills is more dangerous when the child reaches a higher gestational age, and it can be deadly when attempted with an ectopic pregnancy.

Click here to read more.

FOIA Request Reveals Investigation Into University of Pittsburgh over Fetal Tissue Research

Emails obtained by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) via FOIA request confirmed that the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)opened an investigation into the University of Pittsburgh's fetal tissue research.

Using federal tax dollars from the National Institute of Health (NIH), the University of Pittsburgh partnered with Planned Parenthood to obtain fetal kidneys harvested during late-term abortions.

Email exchanges obtained by CMP revealed that the OIG issued a subpoena to the University of Pittsburgh for documents regarding the “fetal tissue collection procedures associated with the GenitoUrinary Development Molecular Anatomy Project (GUDMAP) Tissue Hub and Collection Site at the University of Pittsburgh.”

Watch the CMP's video report on the public records here.

This investigation came after CMP reported on the University of Pittsburgh's ethically and legally dubious research program in August of 2021. CMP reported the University of Pittsburgh's program, as described in its grant application to the NIH, violates federal law by collecting organs harvested during partial-birth abortions.

“Pitt’s own statements indicating its Planned Parenthood partners use criminal partial-birth abortions to harvest fetal organs to sell for NIH grant money are serious enough that a federal law enforcement agency opened a formal investigation following CMP’s reporting,” said CMP founder and president David Daleiden. “If this investigation has been conducted honestly, the facts uncovered may be more horrifying than we ever imagined. Planned Parenthood has cloaked its human atrocities committed against vulnerable mothers and infants under its ‘research’ program for decades—it is time for justice under the law for every level of the taxpayer-funded enterprise of selling aborted baby body parts.”

Click here to read more.

Illinois Agrees to Permanent Injunction Blocking Anti-PRC Law

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is waving the white flag in his legal battle to enforce a law threatening pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) with legal action for engaging in pro-life speech.

SB1909 threatened PRCs with investigations if they were accused of providing "misinformation," including "the omission of any material fact." Because "material fact" was not defined by the legislation, it could be interpreted to require PRCs to refer women for abortions. If enforced, the law would have allowed Illinois to levy $50,000 fines against PRCs found guilty.

District Judge Iain Johnston issued an injunction temporarily blocking SB1909's enforcement on August 3. In his ruling, he stated that the law likely violated the First Amendment. “There’s no doubt who the Attorney General wants to win or lose in the marketplace of ideas, but the government doesn’t get to decide that,” Johnston said. “The people do.”

On December 11, Raoul agreed to an order that would permanently block the enforcement of SB1909. If Johnston signs the proposed order, litigation will cease and the law will not be enforced. Further, the proposed order allows pro-life organizations to seek recovery for litigation costs they experienced while fighting SB1909.

The coalition of pro-life organizations fighting SB1909 was represented by the Thomas More Society. In a statement celebrating the victory, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation Peter Breen said,

“SB 1909 exempts abortion facilities and their speech, while exclusively regulating pro-life organizations and their speech, in flagrant violation of the First Amendment. This law is just one of a number of illegal new laws enacted across the country that restrict pro-life speech—we hope this permanent injunction, with full attorney’s fees, serves as a warning to other states that would seek to follow Illinois and try to silence pro-life viewpoints. We are honored to represent NIFLA and other life-affirming organizations to protect them from unjust laws like SB 1909 that seek to put a halt to their good work.”

PRCs offer a variety of free services (often for free) to women experiencing difficult or unplanned pregnancies. These charitable organizations hope to provide life-affirming alternatives for mothers who would prefer to let their children live. The actions threatened by pro-abortion politicians pushing SB1909 were both unwarranted and illegal.

Raoul's own press release is filled with irony. “As filed, this proposed order is agreed to by the parties in this case and in no way affects my ongoing work protecting women’s rights to access the full range of reproductive health services,” Raoul said. “Furthermore, this proposed order does not alter Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act or my office’s preexisting authority under the act, and I remain committed to protecting consumers against all deceptive practices.”

Pro-life advocates argued during SB1909's passage that Illinois consumer protection laws already protect Illinoisans from deceptive business practices without singling out PRCs or violating their First Amendment rights. A FOIA request also revealed that the attorney general's office had no record of any complaints being filed against a PRC regarding deceptive business practices While Raoul's statement may have been intended as a threat, it suggests that he knew pro-lifers were right.

Congress Defense Spending Compromise Drops Abortion Spending Amendment

On December 7, the US House and Senate armed services committees approved a compromised version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This compromise version dropped several House amendments, including one that would have prohibited the US military from using taxpayer dollars to fund travel expenses for abortions.

The NDAA is an annual spending package that sets the military's budget. Recent decisions by the Biden administration, such as abortion travel funding, have made this year's NDAA more controversial than usual.

The pro-life amendment in the House version of the bill was meant to combat Biden's post-Dobbs policy that allowed military members and their dependents to use taxpayer dollars to travel out of state for elective abortions. While taxpayer dollars could not fund abortion directly, they are used to pay the abortion travel expenses of those who are stationed in states with pro-life laws.

The committees only met to reconcile differences between House and Senate spending packages. To pass the compromise legislation, it will still need to be approved by both bodies of Congress before going to President Joe Biden's desk.

Click here to read more.

Sen. Tuberville Ends Promotion Blockade for Most Military Appointments

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

On December 5, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) ended his 10-month-long blockade of unanimous-consent military promotions.

In February, Tuberville began blocking unanimous consent votes for military promotions in protest of the Biden administration's use of taxpayer dollars to pay the abortion travel expenses of military members and their dependents. Since then, over 400 military appointments have accumulated in the Senate's backlog.

While the Senate can hold individual votes for each appointment, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has only initiated such votes in a few circumstances.

Tuberville told reporters, “I’m not going to hold the promotions of these people any longer,” according to CBS News. “We just released them —  about 440 of them. Everybody but 10 or 11 four-stars.”

The Senate confirmed 425 military promotions on December 5, leaving only 11 highest-ranking positions on hold.

“This policy is illegal,” Tuberville said on the Senate floor the following day. “Yesterday I announced that I would change my tactics and let the promotions go through … I’m not going to stop fighting for these things and I’m not going to stop fighting for the American people.”

Click here to read more.

Texas Supreme Court Freezes Ruling that Gave Mother Exemption to Pro-Life Law

On December 8, the Texas Supreme Court put a hold on a district judge's ruling that gave one mother an exemption to Texas's pro-life protections.

The Supreme Court's order was a response to a December 7 injunction issued by District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble. The injunction would have allowed abortionists to end the life of Texas resident Kate Cox's unborn child.

Because Cox's preborn child was diagnosed with Trisomy 18 and Cox has previously undergone two C-sections, Cox argues that her pregnancy puts her at an increased risk of complications. The Associated Press reported, “doctors have told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her two prior cesareans sections, and that another C-section at full term would endanger her ability to carry another child.”

“I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer,” Cox said in a press release. “I need to end my pregnancy now so that I have the best chance for my health and a future pregnancy.”

Cox's statement suggests that death is "what is best" for her disabled child so that she can preserve her ability to carry a future child who is not disabled.

Click here to read more.

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!