October 30, 2020

Pregnant ESPN Reporter to Shaming Commenters: "I am proud to be a pregnant woman"

Molly McGrath Instagram post
After ESPN reporter Molly McGrath became pregnant, she, like many women who continue to work during their pregnancies, was shamed online by commenters about her body. She responded to internet hate with a post on Instagram:

“Last night I was on my feet for over 6 hours straight, in the rain, and knew that I would only get 3 hours of sleep because of a last second flight change. For the first time, maybe ever, I let a cruel troll tweet about the changes of my pregnant body get to me.

Here’s the thing: being pregnant is hard, especially as I enter my third trimester. My feet swell and hurt like I’ve never imagined and my back constantly aches. Not to mention the slew of other symptoms like nausea, heartburn, and exhaustion. I am making a HUMAN LIFE! The baby I’m carrying around could live outside of my body right now, and my strong ass body made that baby from scratch.

Completely separately, the job of a sideline reporter is also hard with the travel, prep, hustle to get information, and reality that we never get into a broadcast as much as we could have contributed. But you know what, I wouldn’t change ANY of my circumstances in a second. I feel so incredibly lucky to have a job that I’m so passionate about, it makes me forget that a little human is kicking my ribs.

I am proud to be a pregnant woman working full-time and I am proud that the magnitude of creating a human life has not, and will not, slow me down. Women are freaking incredible and powerful and anyone who doesn’t see that can kiss my big achey butt.”

Pregnant mothers often feel pressured by employers to abort or quit their jobs. Those who broadcast themselves on video receive added pressure from viewers and employers. Women should not have to abort their children to build careers, and McGrath wants to make sure women know this.

“I want young women to see me on TV and know that you can have a successful career and a family,” McGrath said in a Yahoo interview.

Click here to read more.

Louisiana Voters to Decide Whether to Exclude "Right to Abortion" from State's Constitution

California State Sen.
Katrina Jackson (D)
On Louisiana ballots, there is a constitutional amendment authored by a pro-life Democrat which, if passed, would ensure that no "right to abortion," publicly funded or otherwise, is found in the state's constitution.

State Senator Katrina Jackson authored Amendment 1, otherwise known as the “Love Life Amendment,” which would update the Louisiana Constitution to state “nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”

Jackson wrote in an op-ed that the goal of this amendment is to ensure that Louisiana courts could not circumvent pro-life legislation by finding a right to abortion in the state's constitution. This will be particularly important if pro-abortion decisions are overturned from the Supreme Court level.

“It’s important to understand that Amendment 1 is not a ban on abortion. It simply keeps abortion policy in the hands of our legislators rather than state judges,” Jackson wrote.

The state already has a "trigger law" on the books that would immediately ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Click here to read more.

New Center for Medical Progress Video Shows Planned Parenthood Dishonesty about Fetal Tissue Research Programs

Screenshot from CMP video
The Center for Medical Progress released a new video using sworn testimony from Planned Parenthood officials during the trial against pro-life investigative reporter David Daleiden and The Center for Medical Progress. This new video shows Planned Parenthood's dishonesty regarding its fetal tissue research programs.

The ironic trial against Daleiden and the CMP mostly involves a California privacy law that protects individuals from being recorded without their permission. Pro-life legal counsel has been fighting a legal battle against the charges for years. They argue that because the footage was recorded in public places, and they believed violence was being committed against living children who were killed after birth the law does not apply to these recordings. California's recording law specifically has exceptions for recordings made in public areas and recordings made when the recorder believes violent crimes are taking place. The law has never before been aimed at journalists.

It is unfortunate that the CMP's 2015 videos have resulted in no charges against Planned Parenthood, and instead have locked them in a legal battle against the abortion giant. Daleiden and the CMP are calling on the Office of the Attorney General to formally prosecute Planned Parenthood and other organizations affiliated with the fetal trafficking allegations.

If the above player isn't working, click here to view the video on YouTube.

October 29, 2020

31 Nations Stand with US in Declaring "there is no international right to abortion"

HHS Secretary Alex Azar
On Oct. 22, the United States stood alongside 31 other countries at the United Nations that there is no international right to abortion.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and HHS Secretary Alex Azar were both involved in the virtual signing of the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which says in its opening words that its purpose is to express “the essential priority of protecting the right to life” and promote the “strength of the family and of a successful and flourishing society.”

The declaration goes on to say that the governments that co-sponsor this document “[r]eaffirm the inherent ‘dignity and worth of the human person,’ that ‘every human being has the inherent right to life,’ and the commitment ‘to enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.’”

In another point, the declaration says that the sponsoring nations “[e]mphasize that ‘in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning’ and that ‘any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process.’” 

At the signing event, Secretary Azar argued that this declaration is not just a ceremonial gesture:

“The Declaration is much more than a statement of beliefs—it is a critical and useful tool to defend these principles across all United Nations bodies and at every multilateral setting, using language previously agreed to by member states of those bodies. ... Tragically, women around the world unnecessarily suffer health challenges—all too often, deadly health challenges—while too many wealthy nations and international institutions put a myopic focus on a radical agenda that is offensive to many cultures and derails agreement on women’s health priorities. Today, we put down a clear marker: No longer can U.N. agencies reinterpret and misinterpret agreed-upon language without accountability. Member States set the policy for the U.N. to pursue. Not the other way around.”

To read more, including the full declaration, click here. 

Disability Rights Proponent Argues Against Assisted Suicide in Interview with The Advocate

photo credit: Matthew Perkins / Flickr
John Kelly, the regional director of New England's chapter of the disability advocacy organization Not Dead Yet, was interviewed by The Independent about how legalized assisted suicide puts the lives of the disabled at risk.

“I myself am paralyzed below my shoulders,” Kelly told the Independent. “So I get to see a barrage of better-dead-than-disabled messages, as carried in such by films like Me Before You, Million Dollar Baby, etc.”

Citing data from Oregon's annual assisted suicide report, Kelly noted that 87% of those who desired assisted suicide did so due to "loss of autonomy."

“These bills depend on a view that people with severe disabilities, and that includes people who are ‘terminally ill’, have such a low quality of life that they're better off dead,” Mr Kelly said. “What these bills say is that this is a personal benefit, a social benefit. And so when people are given a pass to commit assisted suicide because of their disabilities, well, then those same views will be applied to people who are outside of an assisted-suicide situation.”

If many people with disabilities come to believe that their lives aren't worth living and choose assisted suicide, this creates social-pressure for other disabled people to choose suicide, even if that would not have been on their minds otherwise.

“People are very susceptible to others,” Kelly said, “and when everyone around you thinks things would be better if you were dead, well that's going to encourage people.”

“I sympathize with people who suddenly become disabled … but that's where we help people. We make sure that people know that they're valued and they're just as much of a full human being as they have ever been. It's tragic to see people wanting to die because of shame and humiliation.

The Independent also communicated with Dr. T Brian Callister, a professor of medicine at the University of Nevada. He told the independent about two patients of his who were denied care by their insurance companies and instead offered assisted suicide. He argued that more legal assisted suicide laws would only continue this trend for patients who could otherwise recover from their illnesses. “What happens is that your choice for lifesaving treatment is going to be limited by the fact that the insurance companies now have a cheaper option,” Dr. Callister said.

Click here to read more.

October 28, 2020

Senate Officially Confirms Barrett to Supreme Court

Amy Coney Barrett taking a Constitutional
Oath at the White House.
On Monday evening, the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Shortly after the vote, Barrett took a Constitutional oath administered by Justice Clarence Thomas during a ceremony at the White House. The next day, she took a separate judicial oath administered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

Monday's confirmation vote went along party lines, with the only outlier being Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted alongside Democrats against Barrett's confirmation.

"Over the past few weeks, the entire world has seen Justice Barrett’s deep knowledge, tremendous poise, and towering intellect," President Trump said at the White House ceremony. "She answered questions for hours on end. Throughout her entire confirmation, her impeccable credentials were unquestioned, unchallenged, and obvious to all."

After she was sworn in at the White House, Justice Barrett gave an address that concluded, "The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the Democratic Republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it. Thank you."

Barrett graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School and clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She began teaching at Notre Dame Law School in 2010 and was confirmed to the Seventh-Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Barrett is a Catholic mother of seven who has become the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the Supreme Court. 

During her confirmation to the Seventh Circuit, she was famously challenged for her faith by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Sen. Feinstein told Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern.”

Barrett faced similar challenges by Democrats during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Senators on the committee challenged her pro-life beliefs, arguing that she would be unable to fairly judge the law due to her own personal beliefs. Barrett patiently listened during each hearing and responded, “I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I am not. 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.” 

She told Senators that she would set aside her personal beliefs and follow the law regardless of what cases are put before her.

Click here to read more.

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.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)