October 27, 2020

New York Mother Arrested After Throwing Newborn Out Window

A mother in Queens, New York was arrested last week after she threw her newborn son out her bathroom window not long after giving birth.

A neighbor discovered the child on the morning of Oct. 18. Police found a blood trail indicating where the baby was thrown from, and the child was brought to a hospital for treatment. Cohen Children's Medical Center doctors told the New York Post that he suffered from hypothermia, a traumatic brain injury, and internal bleeding. The child remained in critical condition.

Police announced last Tuesday that the mother, 23-year-old Sabita Dookram, was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, tampering with physical evidence, abandonment of a child, and acting in a manner to injure a child.

“This is a heartbreaking situation,” said Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz. “A newborn baby has suffered greatly because of the alleged actions of his mother, who now faces serious charges and a lengthy prison sentence.”

Mississippi Calls on Supreme Court to Rule on State's 15-Week Abortion Ban

Mississippi Attorney General
Lynn Fitch
On Thursday, Oct. 23, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a case about Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. In her argument, she pointed out a growing difference of opinion between different courts.

She wrote that the split which needed to be remedied is, “whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Casey’s ‘undue burden’ standard or Hellerstedt’s balancing of benefits and burdens.”

“This case remains an ideal vehicle to promptly resolve both that question and the first question presented—the contradictions in this Court’s decisions over use of ‘viability’ as a bright line for measuring pro-life legislation,” Fitch stated.

In her statement, she noted that the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion as the Sixth and Eighth Circuit Courts, something the courts have publicly acknowledged.

Click here to read more.

October 26, 2020

Biden on the Supreme Court: "There's a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing."

screen capture from 60 Minutes video on YouTube
In a clip released last Thursday from a 60 minutes interview, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden responded to the topic of court-packing.

In the interview with Norah O'Donnell, Biden said that as president he would give a “bipartisan commission of scholars” 180 days to “come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack.”

“And it’s not about court-packing,” Biden continued. “There’s a number of other things that our constitutional scholars have debated and I’ve looked to see what recommendations that commission might make.”

“There’s a number of alternatives that are — go well beyond packing,” he added. “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

This response is notable because up to this point Biden had refused to respond to questions about court-packing at all. Earlier this month, Biden told reporters that they would know his opinion on court-packing after the election.

“The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that rather than focusing on what’s happening now,” Biden said on Oct. 8.

If Biden and a pro-abortion Congress respond to the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by work together to reform the court system, the issue of abortion would surely be at the front of their minds. Voters are also left wondering what kinds of actions Biden is considering that "go well beyond packing."

Click here to read more.

October 23, 2020

Senate Judiciary Committee Advances Judge Barrett's Supreme Court Nomination

Judge Amy Coney Barrett
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination to the full senate.

All Republicans on the court voted in favor of the nominee, while Democrats boycotted the vote. Instead, they left pictures of people who they argued would lose their health insurance under a Supreme Court including Judge Barrett. They continued to claim throughout the hearings that Judge Barrett would strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. Barrett gave no indication that she would do so while she was questioned by the court. She repeatedly said that she would not pre-commit to decisions, following in the footsteps of past court nominees. She did say, however, that the Supreme Court would need to determine whether the Affordable Care Act should stand without the individual mandate.

In a speech Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gave before the Judiciary Committee's vote, he said, “We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway.” 

The final vote before the full Senate is scheduled for Monday, October 26. If votes are otherwise along party lines once again, Republicans could lose up to three votes and still successfully confirm Judge Barrett.

Click here to read more.

Report Says Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Served 2 Million People in 2019

photo credit: Daiga Ellaby / Unsplash
Among other things, a new study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) says that the growing number of pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) provided free services to 1.85 million people in the United States during 2019.

The CLI study, titled "Pregnancy Centers Stand the Test of Time," shows that the approximately 2,700 pregnancy centers nationwide provided an estimated value of $270 million in services and material assistance to those in need. These services included 732,000 pregnancy tests, 486,000 ultrasounds, and 160,000 STI/STD tests. Additionally, PRCs provide items like diapers and car seats, parenting/prenatal education, after-abortion recovery, and abortion pill reversal.

Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said, “Pregnancy centers exist to serve and support mothers in the courageous decision to give their children life, even under the most difficult circumstances. This report calculates the impact of their mission of love in concrete terms.”

PRCs continue to assist communities to the benefit of parents and their unborn children every day. This report shows that donors and volunteers throughout the country doing "boots-on-the-ground" work are saving lives.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Upholds Kentucky Hospital Transfer Agreement Law

photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
On Oct. 16, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Kentucky law requiring abortion facilities (and all other ambulatory surgical centers in the state) to maintain “a written agreement with a licensed acute-care hospital capable of treating patients with unforeseen complications related to an abortion facility procedure” and “a written agreement with a licensed local ambulance service.”

This decision overrules a 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Greg Stivers, which had said that the regulations on abortion clinics placed too large of a barrier between women and abortion access. EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky both sued the state to challenge the law after it closed an abortion clinic that was operating without a license.

The Appeals Court majority opinion writes, “In 1998, the Kentucky General Assembly imposed new licensing requirements on abortion providers in response to concerns about the appalling, unsanitary conditions in some Kentucky abortion facilities.” Live Action News says that the reason the law wasn't challenged for so long is that it was never actually enforced until 2016.

Click here to read more.

October 22, 2020

Facebook Suspends Ads from Pro-Life Group After Biased Fact-Check Claims Biden-Harris Don't Support Abortion

photo credit: Kon Karampelas / Unsplash
After publishing ads for Susan B. Anthony List on Facebook and Instagram which pointed out that the Biden-Harris presidential ticket supports abortion "up to the moment of birth," Facebook (which owns both platforms) suspended Choose Life Marketing's Facebook Business Manager Account.

To justify the suspension, Facebook relied on a fact-check from The Dispatch, which was taken down by an editor. The Dispatch posted the following response on its website:

"The fact-check was published in error and in draft form, before it had been through final edits and our own internal fact-checking process. As a result, the viral post was assigned a “partly false” rating that we have determined is not justified after completing The Dispatch fact-checking process. We regret the error and apologize to the Women Speak Out PAC. We’ve pulled the fact-check and lifted the rating."

A Facebook spokesperson told the National Review that they were working to have the ads reinstated.

Choose Life Marketing Content Marketing Manager Marcie Little told Live Action News that Facebook's restrictions on its account are also preventing the organization from publishing ads for pro-life pregnancy centers. Furthermore, Facebook has told them that it may take weeks for the issue to be reviewed.

“This means for weeks, we won’t be able to run Facebook or Instagram ads for the pregnancy centers we serve,” Little said. “As paying customers of Facebook, it is appalling our account was locked without reason and their only answer for us is it might take weeks to hear back from them.”

“Our inability to run ads on two of the largest social media platforms these women use means they may not find out about the alternatives to abortion available to them,” Little continued.

“They won’t hear about the compassionate, caring pregnancy center staff who can listen to their fears and concerns about an unplanned pregnancy. They won’t learn about the free resources available to them if they choose life. The only option they’ll hear about is abortion, which has lasting negative impact on their lives — physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Facebook will be responsible for women missing out on the care they need and deserve in one of the darkest, scariest moments of their lives.”

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley wrote in a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that he plans on asking about this incident when Zuckerberg is under oath discussing big tech censorship in front of Congress in the coming weeks.

Click here to read more.

Lawyer Forced out of Job Due to Pregnancy Describes Discrimination Against Working Mothers

In an article published on Yahoo! Lifestyle, lawyer Jenny Leon wrote about her experience working for a private law firm while being pregnant. She described how watching other women in her practice made her afraid for the future and how her treatment eventually made her feel as though she had no choice but to leave.

"Looking around me, my future seemed bleak," Leon wrote.
"One evening I peered into the office of a partner, a young mother, who was passed out on her desk. On a client call one evening, I listened to another partner, this one a single mother, pleading with the client to push an arbitrary deadline to the next morning, as she needed to be home by 9 p.m. to relieve her babysitter. Her pleas were briskly dismissed."
The needs of mothers in the workplace are often overlooked by employers who only value workers when they are the most productive. This causes many employers to encourage the use of abortion for working women who become pregnant. It can easily be seen by them as a "quick fix" to the lower productivity a woman might have while pregnant or caring for a child.

"This situation seemed preferable to the alternative: the partners who lived in the land of deep regret," Leon continued.
"There was the woman who kept an apartment in the city and only saw her kids on weekends. After her kids grew up, she moved across the country to where one of them lived, so she could at least be present for her grandchildren. One woman regretfully told me that she would never have kids. She worked too hard to either meet a man or to do it on her own. Another spoke about how she waited too long to have children and ended up needing numerous rounds of fertility treatments."
Leon described how she received a call from a partner at the law firm while she was experiencing spotting from her pregnancy. He wanted her to complete a letter for the firm, but she was unable to do so at that moment. The next day, Leon heard from a friend at work that the partner who called her was saying that she "flaked again for some pregnancy-related excuse."

Leon wrote,
"I had given so much of myself, my time, my sweat, my tears and my pregnancy to this man. "But the second I expected some basic human consideration, I was thrown away like a dirty diaper. If I couldn’t give them everything, I was nothing. I had fallen into the stereotype of a woman whose priorities had shifted and my baby hadn’t even been born.

I knew there was no choice. I had to leave."

Leon ended her piece by pointing out that her mother, who was also a lawyer, similarly felt the need to quit her job after Leon was born. According to her, very little has changed in those 35 years.

Click here to read more.

October 21, 2020

Pro-Abortion Groups Call on Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Step Down from Judiciary Committee for Giving the Barrett Hearings the "appearance of credibility."

Sen. Diane Feinstein and Sen. Lindsey Graham
embracing after Senate Judiciary Committee
hearings on Oct. 15.
image captured from C-Span video
Several pro-abortion organizations, including the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), have called on Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to step down as the Democrat ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee after she gave the "appearance of credibility" to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's committee hearings.

During the Oct. 15 hearing, Sen. Feinstein thanked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-SC) for presiding over “one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.” 

“I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth,” Feinstein said.

“It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions, and even some ideas--perhaps some good bipartisan legislation we can put together to make this great country even better.”

Feinstein has made it no secret that she plans to vote no on Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, but she still thanked Sen. Graham for conducting fair hearings and embraced him after the hearing had finished.

In response, NARAL president Ilyse Hogue gave a statement that "the committee needs new leadership" because Feinstein gave an “appearance of credibility to the proceedings,” which the NARAL argues are illegitimate due to their proximity to the U.S. election.

“Americans--whose lives hang in the balance--deserve leadership that underscores how unprecedented, shameful and wrong this process is.”

The group Demand Justice also came out with statements denouncing Feinstein's conduct during the Barrett hearings, as well as a petition asking Sen. Feinstein to step down.

In the petition, Demand Justice wrote, “Sen. Feinstein has undercut Democrats' position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court.”

This response from pro-abortion political activists to polite and respectful statements coming from a politician who agrees with their beliefs is a saddening sign of the times.

Click here to read more.

University of Northern Iowa Student Government Rejects Students for Life Group. Labels it a "Hate Group."

photo credit: James McNellis / Flickr
The University of Northern Iowa (UNI) student government has rejected a request from pro-life students to officially register a Students for Life group on campus. After the UNI student government voted against the group's application to register, the student judiciary held a heated discussion upholding that decision.

Sophomore Sophia Schuster, who went through the process to register the Students for Life group, spoke with The Courier about the situation.

“I was absolutely floored by the (student) supreme court’s decision after we appealed it,” she said. “The charge I brought against the senate was that they rejected us not based on any policies, but that they rejected us on personal beliefs.”

A video released by the Young America's Foundation shows members of the UNI student government arguing Students for Life, which has chapters in other schools, "engages in hate speech."
Before the student court voted to uphold the government's decision, Young America's Foundation also received a response from a UNI spokesperson, who said the following:

“The University of Northern Iowa is committed to protecting our students’ First Amendment rights and is concerned that recent actions by the student government violated UNI policy by rendering a decision that was not content-neutral.  We have provided the petitioning student organization with resources and encouraged them to appeal the decision...

If the court declines to grant their petition, the student group can appeal that ruling to the university president.

UNI will not uphold a decision that violates the First Amendment and university policy.”

Schuster told The Courier that she was in the process of appealing the decision to the UNI president.

“I was absolutely floored by the (student) supreme court’s decision after we appealed it,” said Schuster. “The charge I brought against the senate was that they rejected us not based on any policies, but that they rejected us on personal beliefs.”

President of the national Students for Life organization said that legal counsel has been contacted on behalf of the UNI group.

October 20, 2020

Preborn Child Delivered and Dies After Chicago Mother Shot and Killed

Stacey Jones with her two surviving sons
photo from her family's gofundme
Early in the morning on Tuesday, October 13th, 35-year-old Stacey Jones, a Cook County adult probation officer who was pregnant with her third child, was shot to death near her home on the south side of Chicago. Jones's unborn child was successfully delivered by physicians and brought to Comer Children’s Hospital in critical condition, where the baby boy died just before 2 p.m. on Saturday, October 17. He was only 4 days old.

Illinois is one of 38 states that have fetal homicide laws. Illinois code defines an “unborn child” as “any individual of the human species from the implantation of an embryo until birth.” While the Illinois code may also be one of the most generous in the United States for abortionists, it still applies a degree of value to unborn human life when it is taken maliciously in events like this.

Chicago police have questioned one suspect, but the person was released without charges. Detectives are still investigating the shooting. Authorities believe that the shooting was not a random act.

Click here to read more.

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Hospital's Appeal to End Treatment for Baby Tinslee

Tinslee Lewis
On Oct. 16, the Texas Supreme Court denied a hospital's appeal to withdraw medical care from 18-month old Tinslee Lewis, whose family has been in a legal battle with the state over the 10-day rule for nearly a year.

In November of 2019, Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas invoked the Texas 10-day rule on baby Lewis and her family. This meant that the family had ten days to find another medical provider willing to provide healthcare for Tinslee, or the hospital would withdraw life-sustaining medical care and allow Tinslee to die.

Trinity Lewis, Tinslee's mother, has accused the hospital of giving false information about her daughter's condition. She has been fighting the hospital over the legality of the 10-day rule in court, and questions about the rule's constitutionality have come into question.

October 19, 2020

Tammy Duckworth Gives Statement on Senate Judiciary Committee Vote on Barrett Nomination

Sen. Tamy Duckworth (D-IL)
U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) has unsurprisingly taken a hard stance against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. It's no secret that the Oct. 22 Senate Judiciary Committee vote regarding Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court is a very partisan subject. Now Sen. Duckworth has put together a response to be sent to any constituents asking her to support President Trump's nominee.

In this response, she paints Barrett as an extreme "anti-choice" judicial activist who supports "arresting mothers who use IVF [in-vitro fertilization] in the future" because she "associated herself with an Indiana organization, St. Joseph County Right to Life." Because St. Joseph County Right to Life has said it would support criminalizing the disposal of frozen embryos, Duckworth called her association with the organization "disqualifying".

Barrett did sign her name for a newspaper advertisement supporting the right to life, but that advertisement did not reference the issue of IVF.

Duckworth's written response goes on to argue that Barrett would rule against the Affordable Care Act and that the Republican party should abstain from nominating or accepting Supreme Court Justices during an election. The former of these has little basis in reason. During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week, Judge Barrett said that the Supreme Court would need to consider whether to remove the individual mandate from the Affordable Care Act while allowing other aspects of it to remain standing. The outcry against a new Trump Supreme Court nominee at this time is purely a partisan argument. Voters have little reason to believe that the situation would be any different if the parties were reversed.

Many pundits predict that the committee vote will be strictly along party lines. Republicans would accept Judge Barrett's nomination, and Democrats would reject her. Because Republicans have the majority in the Senate, Barrett is likely to be accepted by both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.

October 16, 2020

Appeals Court Rules Against Texas Ban on Dismemberment Abortion

photo credit: Bill Oxford / Unsplash
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to strike down a Texas law banning dismemberment abortions. The abortion method involves tearing an unborn child's limbs and head from its body piece by piece so it can be removed from a woman's body without inducing labor. This is done because the child's body has grown too large to be removed by other abortion methods.

Judge James Dennis wrote in his opinion that the law “forces abortion providers to act contrary to their medical judgment and the best interest of their patient.” He opines that the law would  require abortionists to use “dangerous” procedures that offer “no benefit to the woman. He wrote that its “burdens substantially outweigh its benefits.”

In response to the decision, Texas Right to life wrote, "After a three-year wait, the decision by the three-judge panel is disappointing and demonstrates the need for judges who follow the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. However, Texas must continue the legal battle to force a federal circuit court split, pressuring the Supreme Court of the United States to evaluate the merits of the law."

Click here to read more.

Day 4 of Barrett Hearings. Committee Vote Set for Oct. 22.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett
screenshot from C-Span
Thursday marked the fourth day of hearings regarding Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to fill a seat on the Supreme Court. The day included a failed call from Sen. Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to delay the confirmation process "indefinitely", as well as statements from several witnesses. The committee's final vote to bring the nominee before the full Senate is set for Thursday, Oct. 22.

In a motion that occurred early in the day, Sen. Blumenthal argued that the confirmation proceedings should be delayed "indefinitely". He accused the Republican members of the committee of rushing the process, but his motion failed to pass a committee vote.

As the committee voted Thursday morning to put Judge Barrett's nomination in front of the full Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D) also objected. He argued that the vote should be delayed further since two members of the minority were not present at the hearing. His complaints were unsuccessful, however, and the voting date was set.

Later in the day, several witnesses came before the committee to advocate for and against Judge Barrett's nomination. American Bar Association chair Randall Noel vouched for Barrett, citing her qualifications, integrity, and judicial temperament. Students and clerks of Barrett's called her kind, fair, and empathetic.

Retired Judge Thomas Griffith argued that Barrett's religious beliefs would not impact her interpretation of the law. He said “When wearing the robe, there is no conflict between following God and following Caesar. It’s Caesar all the way down.” He further pointed to a "buffer-zone" case in which she ruled against pro-life demonstrators.

Witnesses against Barrett included a physician from Michigan who was concerned Barrett would strike down the Affordable Care Act, a West Virginian survivor of sexual abuse who feared the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and a mother who argued that the Affordable Care Act made it possible for her to pay for medical care her prematurely-born twins needed.

Barrett has stated repeatedly while being questioned that the Affordable Care Act would not necessarily be struck down in its entirety, even if the Supreme Court were to rule against it. She suggested that justices would have to deliberate about whether the legislators who crafted the Affordable Care Act would have wanted the law to stand without an individual mandate. This explanation makes it seem unlikely that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed in full, but Democrat Senators have stuck to the narrative regardless.

The stance taken by anti-Barrett witnesses is contradictory and bizarre. The witnesses simultaneously implied that Barrett is too pro-life to be brought to the Supreme Court and that she would not protect prematurely born children's right to healthcare. Her qualifications and demeanor have not been challenged. Instead, anti-Barrett politicians relied on emotional arguments with false premises.

Click here to read more.

October 15, 2020

Takeaways from Day 3 of Barrett Hearings

screenshot from C-Span
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee continued their questioning on day three of the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday. During the hearing, Barrett was asked whether she believed Roe v. Wade had "super precedent" and several Senators tried to convince the public that Barrett would strike down Griswold v. Connecticut.

When asked about "super-precedent," meaning that the decision made in a Supreme Court decision has been accepted to the point that it would be incredibly difficult to reverse, Judge Barrett said that Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the gun rights case D.C. v. Heller do not fall under this category. She argued that "super-precedent" only applies to cases that are so well-established that nobody questions their reasoning. She cited Brown v. Board of Education and Marbury v. Madison as decisions with "super-precedent." Cases like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey cannot have "super-precedent" with this definition, because they are litigated constantly.

Some Senate Democrats have tried to push the narrative that Judge Barrett, if she is placed on the Supreme Court, would strike down Griswold v. Connecticut. This decision ruled that states cannot ban the use of contraception for married couples.

“I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere,” Barrett said, responding to a question from Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). She was straightforward in saying that she did not believe the ruling was in any danger of being overturned.

Barrett added that questions were being used by senators "to lay a predicate" for later questions about Roe v. Wade. When responding to questions from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), she said, “Griswold does lie at the base of the doctrine that very much is challenged in federal court.”

Later court cases regarding contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage relied on precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut.

October 14, 2020

Federal Judge Upholds Several Indiana Pro-Life Laws. More Rulings to Come.

Indiana Attorney General
Curtis Hill
Making Illinois stand out even further as a pro-abortion island surrounded by pro-life states, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker upheld several Indiana laws yesterday which prioritize the safety of women seeking abortions and ensure that they are entirely informed about the decision they are making.

The ongoing lawsuit of Whole Women's Health Alliance against the state of Indiana began in 2018, when the Indiana State Department of Health denied the abortion business's request for a license to continue performing medication-induced abortions at its South Bend clinic.

The upheld laws include a requirement that abortion clinics be licensed, a requirement that abortion clinics report abortions to the state, a requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a requirement that all women seeking abortions have ultrasounds beforehand, and a requirement that women be informed about certain details of the abortion process 18 hours before having an abortion.

According to a press release from Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill's office, "The judge also upheld under the Due Process Clause restrictions on the dosage and administration of the abortion drug mifepristone, as well as specifications for abortion clinic facilities. And finally, the judge affirmed under the Due Process Clause Indiana’s law requiring parental consent or a judicial bypass order before a minor can have an abortion."

The lawsuit against the state of Indiana will continue to challenge several requirements passed by the pro-life legislature, however. The same press release by AG Hill said,

"...the plaintiffs are challenging Indiana laws that require, among other things:

  • that abortions be conducted by physicians;
  • that second-trimester abortions be conducted in hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers;
  • that women seeking abortions have an in-person examination and in-person informed-consent counseling before undergoing the abortion;
  • that women seeking abortions be told that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm, that a fetus can feel pain from abortion, and that abortion entails both physical and mental health risks for the mother."
Further litigation will continue on March 15, 2021.

Barrett to Senate Judiciary Committee: "I have no agenda."

Judge Amy Coney Barrett
screen capture from C-Span
On Tuesday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein to comment on whether she thought Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was wrongfully decided. Barrett, like many nominees before her, declined to give a direct answer as to how she interpreted specific decisions. She did speak more about her philosophy as a judge, however.

“I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I am not,” Judge Barrett said. “I don’t have any agenda. I have no agenda to try and overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.” 

“I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it,” said Barrett. Stare decisis is the legal principle of deference to previous decisions made by the court. “Applying all the factors--reliance, workability, being undermined by latter facts and law, just all the standard factors.” 

She further promised that for any issue that comes to the court, even if it has to do with abortion, she would follow the law.

Click here to read more.

October 13, 2020

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds First Hearing for Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett
On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing with President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Democrat committee members attacked the nominee for supposedly wanting to take away healthcare and overrule Roe v. Wade, and pro-abortion protestors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the Senate building.

Sen. Cory Booker accused Judge Barrett of wanting to enable states to "criminalize women" by opposing Roe v. Wade. If the Supreme Court decision is overturned, then states would gain the ability to allow or ban abortion.

Klobuchar similarly attacked Barrett's pro-life views, saying she is, "a justice whose views are known and who will have a profound impact on your life…who you can marry, decisions you can make about your own body.” 

The Democrat Senators continued to argue that the Senate should abstain from voting on Trump's nominee until after the election. By delaying the vote, Democrats can try to get additional seats in the Senate and perhaps control of the presidency in the 2020 election. This judge would also be much more likely to be pro-abortion.

Judge Barrett took a thoughtful approach to her opening statement, saying, "Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try."

Many pro-lifers would consider the decision of Roe v. Wade to be a policy decision made by the court and will agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. It is well-known that Judge Barrett holds pro-life beliefs, but it is unclear how exactly she would rule on abortion if she were to hold a position on the highest court in the United States. Some judges, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, will rarely if ever overrule a previous decision by the Supreme Court.

Click here to read Judge Barrett's full statement.

October 12, 2020

Biden Says, "You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over"

Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
When Joe Biden was pressured once again to state his opinion on "court-packing," this time by journalists rather than the president, Biden said, "You'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over."

Democrat legislators have suggested that if President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, they will attempt to outnumber the court's conservative majority by appointing additional justices past the total of nine that the court has traditionally used for the last 150 years. This has been referred to by Republicans as "packing the court." In the first presidential debate, President Trump challenged Biden to tell voters whether he would pack the court, but the Democratic presidential candidate refused to answer.

“The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that rather than focusing on what’s happening now,” Biden said on Thursday, Oct. 8. The former vice-president went on to argue that the president's nominee shouldn't be confirmed because voting for the presidential election has already started.

The very next day, Biden was asked if the voters deserved to know Biden's plan for the Supreme Court if he was elected, to which he responded, "No, they don't deserve [to]. I'm not gonna play [President Trump's] game."

Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not give his stance on packing the court because that will become a huge topic of conversation heading into the election. He would rather have the media focused on what President Trump is doing now, which Biden believes will be more beneficial to his election prospects.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List, commented on Biden's refusal to say whether he would add justices to the Supreme Court.
“It is becoming more clear every single day that the reason Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not answer the simple question on court packing is because the answer is ‘yes.’ It is the latest example of Joe Biden being completely beholden to the most extreme elements of the Democratic Party, the same radical activists he caved to when he endorsed taxpayer-funded abortion. It is time for Joe Biden to show transparency and admit he’s once again caved to the leftist pro-abortion extremists and will pack the Court if elected.” 

Click here to read more. 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)