July 10, 2020

Biden Pledges to Reinstate Obamacare Birth Control and Abortifacient Mandates

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

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

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

Trump Administration Begins Process to Withdraw from WHO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 9, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 8, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 7, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 6, 2020

Documents Indicate FDA Purchased Aborted Body Parts from Advanced Bioscience Resources

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

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

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

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

July 3, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

July 2, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 1, 2020

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

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

Click here or look below to see the video.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 30, 2020

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

June 29, 2020

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 26, 2020

Trump Signs Executive Order to Improve Foster Care and Adoption

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

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

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

WHO Continues Using Pandemic to Push for Global Abortion Rights

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

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

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

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

June 25, 2020

Planned Parenthood Sues to Block Iowa 24-Hour Wait Period

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

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

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

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