Biden Announces "whole-of-government effort" to Undermine Texas Heartbeat Act

US President Joe Biden (D)

Thursday morning, in response to the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene in the legal challenge to a new Texas law banning the abortion of babies with detectable heartbeats, President Biden announced a "whole-of-government" response to ensure Texas women can still have abortions.

In a Tweet, Biden wrote,

"I am launching a whole-of-government effort to respond to this decision -- looking specifically to HHS and DOJ to see what steps the federal government can take to insulate those in Texas from this law and ensure access to safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe."

In a separate statement, Biden said that he was directing his White House Gender Policy Council and the White House counsel to review “what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas' bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties.”

It is unclear what action Biden plans to take to negate the effects of the legally passed Texas Heartbeat Act.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Chooses Not to Intervene in Texas Heartbeat Law Case

Late Wednesday evening, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to deny a petition by abortion businesses to have Texas's newly enforceable heartbeat law temporarily blocked while lower courts deliberate its constitutionality.

“Hopefully, this law will begin saving the lives of tens of thousands of Texas babies, and we look forward to the day that babies’ lives will be spared across America,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRLC).

Texas's new "Heartbeat Act" bans the abortion of babies once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks gestation. It is unique from other abortion bans in that it is enforced by giving private citizens the power to file lawsuits against those who commit illegal abortions.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all ruled to deny the petitions of abortion businesses. Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, all dissented.

The majority ruled that the abortion businesses did not make a sufficient argument to qualify for relief from the law's enforcement right now.

“The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden,” the majority stated.

The majority emphasized that its decision was not a ruling on the Heartbeat Act's constitutionality, and it could very well rule on this case after it passes through the lower courts.

“In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts,” the majority ruled.

Click here to read more.

IL Gov. J.B. Pritzker Decries Texas Heartbeat Law

IL Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D)

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker posted on Facebook Wednesday morning with a response to Texas's heartbeat law going into effect:

"My heart hurts for the people of Texas, where their state leaders put their radical and dangerous ideological agenda above the health and safety of the people they serve.

Abortion bans don't ban abortion. They endanger women – none more than rural women, poor women, young women and women of color.

I proudly joined our General Assembly in enacting Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act – guaranteeing the fundamental right to choose and, crucially, the access necessary to make choice possible.

Illinois is proud to be a beacon of hope in the Midwest, as demonstrated by the women forced to travel from Missouri for basic medical care.

But let's be clear: NOBODY should be forced to cross state lines to see a doctor. This latest attack proves reproductive healthcare needs to be enshrined into law."

Pritzker's post falsely claims that not having access to abortion businesses can "endanger" some women. His implication here is likely that women in the categories he listed are more likely to attempt risky self-managed abortion methods such as the infamous "coat hanger abortions." These abortions have a high degree of risk for the mother, and they should not be attempted. They are also entirely unnecessary, however. Crisis pregnancy centers, religious organizations, and pro-life charities all exist to help pregnant women get through difficult and unexpected pregnancies.

He also again touted the Illinois Reproductive Health Act and the fact that it made Illinois an abortion destination for the midwest. This is because it deregulated much of the abortion industry in Illinois, which makes it much easier for abortion businesses to commit health violations. This is very different from a state like Missouri, in which abortion businesses found guilty of health code violations find it very difficult to stay open.

Finally, in Pritzker's last sentence, is yet another admission from a pro-abortion advocate that the right to abortion is NOT law. It has only been the whim of the Supreme Court, and no federal statute or amendment crafted by legislators enacted a right to abortion. This fall, even that precedent will be called into question.

Texas Becomes First State to Enforce Heartbeat Law

The Supreme Court did not act on requests by pro-abortion advocates to block Texas's new heartbeat law before it went into effect on Sept. 1. As a result, Texas has become the first state with an enforceable ban against abortions conducted after an unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable.

Starting on Wednesday, private citizens in Texas could file lawsuits against those who conduct illegal abortions or “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets” an illegal abortion, “including paying for or reimbursing the costs of abortion through insurance or otherwise.”

Texas Right to Life has already created a website to receive anonymous tips on alleged illegal abortions to help facilitate legal action. Some pro-abortion activists seek to undermine this, however, by flooding the website with false information.

Click here to read more.

Corruption: Abortion Pill Study Author Paid By Pill Manufacturer

In a situation that unfortunately isn't all that uncommon, JAMA Network Open published a study last week claiming that the telehealth distribution of abortion pills during the COVID-19 pandemic has been safe. The catch? The study was co-authored by a doctor who was paid directly by the abortion pill manufacturer.

Before the pandemic, the FDA enforced a set of regulations called the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) on the distribution of abortion pills. These regulations required recipients of abortion pills to meet in person with a doctor before receiving pills. Doing so allowed doctors to correctly date a pregnancy and diagnose any potential conditions such as ectopic pregnancy. If the baby developed past a certain gestational age or there is an ectopic pregnancy, then taking the abortion pill regimen could put the mother's life at risk.

REMS guidelines were put on hold during the pandemic, and the FDA is currently considering whether they will come back at all.

While several of the study's authors have ties to pro-abortion organizations, Dr. Karen Meckstroth has the most direct conflict of interest. The authors even noted such in a disclosure. Meckstroth is the director of Women's Options Center, an abortion business that conducts abortion as late as 23 weeks gestation. The clinic is also a site for a pharmacy-dispensed abortion pill clinic trial.

The study's disclosure reads, “Dr. Meckstroth reported receiving personal fees from Danco, Inc, a distributor of mifepristone, for staffing a US Food and Drug Administration–mandated expert hotline. The mifepristone used in this care was purchased from GenBioPro, not Danco. No other disclosures were reported.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Groups Call on Supreme Court to Take up Texas Heartbeat Act

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

On Tuesday morning, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that he would consider whether to bring a Texas heartbeat law before the full Supreme Court.

Texas SB 8 bans all abortions, except to save the life of the mother, after the child's heartbeat is detectable. That can happen as early as six weeks. Additionally, the law is enforced by civil lawsuits, but by a government body. Private citizens will have the power to file lawsuits against people implicit in breaking the law. This can include the doctors who commit abortions or third parties who pay for them.

After the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals canceled a hearing that was set for Monday and denied pro-abortion requests to expedite the appeal process, pro-abortion advocates asked the Supreme Court to intervene. If no action is taken, the law could see enforcement as soon as today.

“The Texas Heartbeat Act is the strongest pro-life legislation to pass the Texas Legislature since Roe v. Wade,” Texas Right to Life communication director Kim Schwartz told the Texas Tribune in an interview. “This is a huge victory and could save thousands upon thousands of preborn babies. We look forward to the day that it’s going to be enforced — hopefully very soon.”

Due to the uniqueness of Texas's SB 8, it is unclear whether a challenge to the law would threaten Roe v. Wade. For a case like that, pro-life advocates may have to wait until the fall. The Supreme Court will then hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case involves a Mississippi law that was drafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Click here to read more.

5th Circuit Rejects Last-Minute Challenges as Heartbeat Law Set to go into Effect

Texas SB 8, which will prohibit elective abortions after an unborn child's heartbeat is detectable, was set to go into effect on Wednesday this week. After a last-minute effort from pro-abortion forces to have the law temporarily blocked, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals declined the request. This means that the law will very likely see enforcement.

Over 20 "abortion providers" filed an emergency motion on Saturday night in which they asked the 5th Circuit to issue a temporary stay against SB 8's enforcement or send the case back to a lower court. This came in response to the cancellation of a hearing on Monday that would have discussed SB 8. The 5th Circuit declined to take either action and does not plan to fast-track the appeals process for SB 8.

One abortion business, Whole Woman's Health, predicts that Texas SB 8 will prevent 90% of Texas abortions.

SB 8 is also unique in that it empowers individuals to file lawsuits against abortionists whom they believe violated the law. Because of this, its enforcement is not dependent on the whims of government officials.

Click here to read more.

Mississippi Man Pleads Guilty to First Degree Murder of Girlfriend He Suspected was Pregnant

After over two years of delays in the trial of Mississippian Brandon Theesfeld, who was charged with the murder of his girlfriend whom he suspected of being pregnant, he has pled guilty to murder in the first degree.

Pleading guilty of first-degree murder means that he won't face the death penalty for his actions, but he will still face a life sentence in prison.

On July 20, 2019, Theeself shot Alexandria Kostial multiple times, causing her death. He took this brutal action after having multiple conversations with her over text about her potential pregnancy. It was also found that he searched for information about abortion online in the months after Kostial first mentioned the potential pregnancy on April 12, 2019. As July 20 approached, he purchased a pistol and made internet searches for hollow tip ammunition, tactical face masks, and how convicted serial killer Ted Bundy lured his victims.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Upholds Rights of Pro-Life Protestors

Last Thursday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that pro-life protestors had the right to peacefully protest outside an abortion business in Queens, New York. Thomas Moore Society lawyers represented ten members (including the pastor) of Brooklyn's Church@TheRock; refusing charges made by three consecutive attorneys general that the Christians had threatened and harassed women.

“This is a great win, to be sure,” declared Stephen Crampton, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel, “but the case should never have been brought in the first place. It was always about politics, not justice. The New York Attorney General has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money pursuing bogus claims and persecuting law-abiding Christians. The real crime here is not the actions of the defendants, but the actions of the Attorney General in ever filing this case.”

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi, and Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler handed down the unanimous opinion on August 26, 2021. They affirmed the ruling by US District Court Judge Carol Bagley Amon which denied the state's motion for a preliminary injunction against the pro-life advocates.

A panel of judges from the Second Circuit initially took a year and a half to make its ruling against the pro-life advocates on May 28, 2021. It's good to see that the District and Circuit Courts were much more timely in their decisions to defend the first amendment rights of pro-life protestors.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court to Hear Two Eugenic Abortion Cases Next Month

In September, the Supreme Court is set to hold hearings on several pro-life cases, including two cases that involve the legality of banning abortions based on Down syndrome or other disabilities.

These two cases are Schmitt v. Reproductive Health Services and Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services.

Schmitt v. Reproductive Health Services is a case regarding a Missouri law that bans abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy in addition to discriminatory abortions based exclusively on a Down syndrome diagnosis. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the law in June, but Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt is hoping that the Supreme Court will take a different stance.

In a press release, Schmitt outlined three questions he wanted the Supreme Court to answer in its opinion:

"Whether Missouri’s restriction on abortions performed solely because the unborn child may have Down syndrome is categorically invalid under Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), or whether it is a valid, reasonable regulation of abortion that seeks to prevent the elimination of children with Down syndrome through eugenic abortion?

Whether Missouri’s restrictions on abortions performed after eight, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty weeks’ gestational age are categorically invalid, or whether they are valid, reasonable regulations of abortion that advance important state interests?

Whether the “penumbral” right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and partially reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), should be overruled?"

Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services is another case involving a challenge to an Arkansas law that banned discriminatory abortions based on a baby's diagnosis with Down syndrome. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings blocking Arkansas's law in a press release of her own:

“In my personal experiences, I know individuals with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome, but they also have extra love to give and I will fight for these innocent individuals who are a gift from God,” she said. “The Constitution does not sanction killing an unborn child just because that child may have Down syndrome and I will not stand by and allow this practice to happen.”

Click here to read more.

Alaska Woman Denied Life-Sustaining Care for Refusing COVID Vaccine

Courtney Chavez was released as a patient from her primary medical provider for her refusal to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Unless she can find another specialist willing to take her as a patient for her multiple rare conditions, she will lose access to life-sustaining treatments and prescriptions.

Chavez is an Alaska stay-at-home mother of two who has multiple autoimmune diseases, a blood clotting disorder, and a bleeding disease. Every month, she drove to Alaska Internal Medicine and Pediatrics in Anchorage from Wasilla to receive treatment. On August 17, she was unable to receive treatment because she had been dropped as a patient.

Chavez received a letter from her doctor's office on August 11 informing her that they would no longer provide her with care. It reads, in part,

“Your physician Dr. O’Fallon also feels that if you are so opposed to the vaccine and not willing to heed her medical recommendations that this is not a healthy working relationship and has released you as her patient. She will provide you with 1 month (from the above date) supply of your prescription medications that you receive from her while you find another provider.”

So far, she has been unable to find another specialist who can treat her disorders.

Regarding her treatments, Chavez said, “It is the only reason I am alive today, because the disease almost killed me. This is the only medication that my body has responded to.”

Chavez said that she is not normally hesitant about vaccines, but she was worried that she might suffer severe side-effects from COVID shots due to her blood clotting disorder and other conditions.

“My doctor knows I’m not anti-vaccine, but I’ve had multiple different medications that I have had different reactions to from mild to life threatening,” Chavez said.

“I just want to wait and see what the long-term studies find,” she said. “For those of us who struggle with medicines, it’s scary, especially having been through some of the stuff I’ve been through.”

The denial of medical care based on an individual's vaccine status is an unethical practice in the same vein as death panels and euthanasia. If a patient needs medical treatment, doctors should be willing to provide them with that treatment. Refusal to do so can cause great suffering and deny a patient's basic right to life. 

Pro-life advocates need to watch this trend and keep medical professionals accountable.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Hospitalizes California Patient After Severe Hemorrhaging

A 29-year old woman being wheeled into an ambulance
from the Planned Parenthood clinic in Walnut Creek, CA
after an abortion caused life-threatening bleeding

Last month Operation Rescue documented the third medical emergency this year at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Walnut Creek, California. 911 records show that the 29-year old patient was sent to the hospital for uncontrolled hemorrhaging after she suffered uterine perforation during an abortion.

An employee at the clinic called 911 on July 23, 2021, and asked for an ambulance to transport the patient to the emergency room. According to dispatch records, the patient was transported under a P3-Urgent Priority code to a hospital.

Pro-life witnesses took a picture of the scene as emergency workers wheeled a covered stretcher into the back of an ambulance.

“Once again, Planned Parenthood has injured another woman during a bungled abortion, yet there appears to be no accountability for abortionists who work for Planned Parenthood,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

This is the sixth medical emergency Operation Rescue has recorded at the Walnut Creek Planned Parenthood. Of those, three have happened this year.

Click here to read more.

Infamous Abortionist LeRoy Carhart Faces Malpractice Lawsuit

After one of his patients suffered massive blood loss, a perforated uterus, and traumatic appendix damage, infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart is facing a federal medical malpractice lawsuit.

Late-term abortionist LeRoy Harrison Carhart

Haimanot Aragaw filed the lawsuit against Carhart on July 12, 2021. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the injuries Aragaw suffered during an abortion at one of Carhart's abortion facilities in Bellevue, Nebraska on May 21, 2020.

The story begins when six months into her pregnancy, Aragaw's unborn child was diagnosed with Down syndrome. As a result, she sought an abortion. While the fact that a mother would seek to have her child killed purely because the baby was diagnosed with a disability is heartbreaking, the story gets worse.

LeRoy Carhart and his associate, Anh-Chi Dang Do, attempted to abort Aragaw's baby with a suction procedure. This is not normal for a child who has developed for six months. Suction abortions are normally reserved for the first trimester, and abortionists instead choose to use the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure if the baby has developed into the second trimester. D&E procedures involve dismembering a child and removing each individual limb from the mother's womb until the abortion is complete. This is because the child has grown too large to be removed via suction. Attempting a suction abortion during the second trimester is both ineffective and dangerous for the mother. Aragaw unfortunately learned this first-hand.

When the suction abortion failed, Aragaw starting bleeding profusely. The abortionists, unable to control the bleeding, called an ambulance. Aragaw was transported to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital in Rockville, Maryland. Doctors there found that her uterus had been sliced open, and her baby's body had been shoved into her abdominal cavity behind the uterus. The baby was missing both arms and part of their right leg. Aragaw received a full hysterectomy to save her life, and she also suffered a traumatic injury to her appendix.

Click here to read more.

South Dakota to Appeal Decision Blocking Counseling Requirement Before Abortions

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)

In 2011, South Dakota passed HB 1217. The law had several pro-life provisions, including a requirement that pregnant women consult with a pregnancy help center before deciding whether to abort their children. That requirement was blocked by Clinton-appointed Judge Karen Schreier in June 2011, while other provisions did go into effect. Last Friday, Judge Schreier refused to dissolve that injuction, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem quickly responded by announcing her plan to appeal Judge Schreier's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“All life is precious. Mothers should have the opportunity to hear all relevant information before they are faced with the ‘choice’ of whether to end their unborn child’s life,” said Gov. Noem. “I look forward to the day when all life – born and unborn – is protected by law. Given that the US Supreme Court will soon decide on the constitutionality of prohibiting abortion before ‘viability,’ we are asking the 8th Circuit to recognize that the people’s legislators should have the ability to pass pro-life laws.”

She added, “Today’s decision by the District Court [Judge Schreier] refused to dissolve the injunction, so the law passed by the people’s representatives is suspended until a final court decision is rendered. In doing so, the Court rejected the will of the people when it comes to protecting unborn life.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Legislators Push FDA to Permanently Lift Abortion Pill Safety Requirements

House Oversight Committee Chairwoman
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

After using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to "temporarily" loosen safety requirements for the distribution of abortion pills, pro-abortion advocates are pushing the FDA to make those changes permanent.

Now, a resolution by pro-abortion legislators is echoing that sentiment. On August 19, pro-abortion members of the House Oversight Committee announced its push to roll back REMS protections permanently.

House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) said, “It’s time that we trust the science and ensure access to safe, legal abortion, particularly for communities where abortion care has been historically pushed out of reach. I plan to continue this fight until everyone can freely exercise their right to access abortion — including medication abortion.”

Before the pandemic, the FDA had applied its REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) protocol to the distribution of abortion pills. REMS protocol required the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol to be dispensed in-person by a licensed physician, so that they could take actions to ensure that the pills did not put the mother's life at risk. If the mother incorrectly dated her pregnancy or had an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, taking the abortion pill regimen could pose serious health risks, including hemorrhage and death.

Physicians can ensure that pregnancies are dated correctly and identify ectopic pregnancies. Doing so reduces the chance that a woman whose life would be endangered by the abortion pill regimen will choose it as their method of abortion.

During the pandemic, the FDA has waived the in-person requirement for abortion pill distribution. Instead, the FDA thought it would be more important to slow the spread of COVID-19 by allowing women to simply receive abortion pills over the mail. This also put more women in danger of the health risks posed by the abortion pill.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Upholds Texas Dismemberment Abortion Ban

Last Wednesday, the pro-life movement won a major victory at 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The court reversed a lower court decision and upheld a Texas law that prohibits dismemberment abortions.

Dismemberment abortions, also called dilation and evacuation abortions, are commonly done during the second trimester. The abortion procedure involves the use of forceps to reach into a woman's womb and tear an unborn baby's limbs from its body piece by piece. After the limbs and torso are removed, the abortionist will use forceps to crush the baby's skull. The abortion is complete when the abortionist uses metal instruments to scrape out all the remaining pieces of the baby's body. In this gruesome procedure, the baby dies from bleeding out.

Supreme Court precedent makes it difficult for pro-life laws regulating abortion to survive legal challenges. The 5th Circuit's ruling in this case is a strong step in the right direction.

Texas SB8 specifically prohibits doctors from using forceps to dismember a living fetus. This means that abortionists who perform dismemberment abortions will first need to kill the child through another method, such as a digoxin injection, before tearing the baby apart. While it doesn't ban abortion outright, it is a step towards treating unborn babies more humanely. As steps like this continue, the pro-life movement gets closer to ending abortion.

Texas already bans abortions past 22 weeks gestation.

Click here to read more.

Senator Corrects VA Secretary on Abortion "Regulation"

U.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough

As part of a debate regarding whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) should fund abortions, VA Secretary Denis McDonough called a ban on VA funding of abortions a "policy decision" and a "regulatory matter." This implied that the VA could take internal action to reverse the abortion prohibition and begin funding abortions with taxpayer dollars. U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas criticized McDonough's testimony in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week, making it clear that the prohibition on abortion funding is not simply a "policy decision," it is federal law. it is federal law.

Sen. Moran said, “I want to draw attention to a letter I received from Secretary McDonough last week describing VA’s prohibition on abortion services as a ‘policy decision.’ The letter follows the Secretary’s testimony in March where he described VA-provided abortion services as a ‘regulatory matter.’ What is troubling about these statements is that VA’s prohibition on abortion services is more than a policy decision or regulatory matter, it’s the law.”

Sen. Moran explained that Congress passed the Veterans Healthcare Act in 1992. That law specifically prohibits the VA from offering abortion. He also noted that until 2021, that the VA website was updated this year to reflect the same language used by McDonough in his testimony. It used to read that the VA "cannot, by lay, provide abortion services." In 2021, it was updated to read, "under current regulation, VA does not provide abortion or abortion counseling.

Moran concluded by saying that the VA “has not acted or indicated that it will act on changing its long-standing policy to follow the law as written in regard to abortion... That said, it is necessary to defend life by ensuring that VA or any federal agency does not fund or perform abortions. I expect the Department to continue to follow the law and protect unborn children.”

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Challenges Pro-Life Montana Laws

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana over four pro-life laws passed by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte in 2021.

The four laws being challenge include the following:

• a law banning abortion after 20 weeks gestation

• a requirement that a woman be given the option to view an ultrasound of her child before an abortion

• a law requiring informed consent for abortions involving the abortion pill regimen and blocking the distribution of abortion pills through the mail

• a law prohibiting health insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act's federal exchanges in Montana from paying for abortions

The laws are set to take effect on October 1, but the court could agree to block their enforcement while it considers Planned Parenthood's lawsuit.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Groups Sue Arizona Over Pro-Life Legislation

Arizona Gov. Doug Gucey

Pro-abortion groups have filed suit against the state of Arizona over a new law that, among other things, bans abortionists from aborting an unborn child purely because they were diagnosed with a genetic anomaly such as Down syndrome.

Arizona Gov. Doug Gucey (R) signed SB1457 into law on April 27, 2021. Now, a lawsuit by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona threaten the state's ability to enforce its pro-life protections.

The abortion advocates are seeking a “preliminary injunction before the measures take effect on September 29, 2021,” according to the CRR.

In addition to protecting unborn children with genetic anomalies, the law also prohibits abortion pills from being sent through the mail, bans state taxpayer dollars from funding organizations that offer abortion, and requires abortion businesses to bury or cremate the remains of aborted babies. The law further declares that Arizona laws recognize unborn children as having “all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state.”

The pro-abortion prosecution challenges two of those provisions. It challenges the section of the law that protects children with genetic anomalies from discriminatory abortions, and it challenges the declaration that unborn children have the rights of any other Arizona citizen or resident.

Click here to read more.

Patient Recovers After Texas Hospital Invokes Controversial 10-Day Rule

Jose Cobos-Portillo

In September 2020, Jose Cobos-Portillo came to the U.S. from Mexico on a work visa. In the same month that he arrived, he caught a severe case of COVID-19 and was admitted to Northwest Texas Healthcare in Amarillo to receive care. In the two months that he stayed at the hospital, his life was threatened not only by COVID-19, but also by a hospital threatening to withdraw life-saving medical care.

Northwest Texas Healthcare had invoked the state's controversial 10-day rule, which would allow the hospital to remove life-sustaining care from Cobos-Portillo in 10 days if his family could not find another hospital willing to take him as a patient.

Cobos-Portillo spent much of his time in the hospital under a medically-induced coma. His family was not allowed to visit him because he was in the COVID wing, and they could not speak English proficiently enough to find another hospital to take Cobos-Portillo.

“A doctor started to get arrogant with me; he told me that he wasn’t asking for my permission,” said Arturo, Cobos-Portillo's brother. “He told me that he was going to go to a committee and that they were going to disconnect Jose… The doctor told me that Jose had run out of options and that he only had one week left. So he was going to go to the committee and we would have to disconnect him. One of them claimed that I accepted that they would disconnect him; we never wanted that. It was so difficult for us, we were here in Mexico, and he was alone in the U.S., hospitalized in Amarillo. There wasn’t anything that we could do and it was so difficult, the whole family was suffering with that uncertainty.”

Arturo was his brother's medical decision-maker while his brother was in a coma. He tried to advocate for his brother's life in phone calls and ethics committee meetings, but he was limited by the language barrier. The hospital provided no interpreters to assist him during the process.

After Cobos-Portillo's family received legal help from Texas Right to Life, Northwest Texas Healthcare granted him an indefinite amount of time to recover. He stayed in the hospital for three more months after it had attempted to invoke the 10-day rule, after which he successfully recovered. With the help of physical therapy and oxygen, he was able to return to his family.

“[M]y brother Arturo met a very good lady named Katherine Pitcher who talked with the hospital and told them that if they wanted to disconnect me, they would face consequences. I had already had eye movements and responses at this time,” said Cobos-Portillo.

Click here to read more.