September 30, 2021

Parental Notice Repeal and TEXAS Act to be Considered During Fall Session

Pro-life advocates in Illinois would be wise to turn their attention to state politics throughout the coming month, as the fall legislative session is about to begin.

Oct. 19-21 and Oct. 26-28 mark the dates for the upcoming fall session. During October, pro-life advocates need to be on the lookout for legislation repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act and any new pro-abortion bills that may appear. One of these bills is HB4146, otherwise known as the TEXAS Act, which was filed by Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D) on Sept. 14.

HB4146 is designed both to simultaneously mock and undermine the Texas Heartbeat Act, which prohibits the abortion of unborn children when they have detectable heartbeats (around 6 weeks gestation). The Texas Heartbeat Act allows individuals to file lawsuits against those who assist in the killing of unborn children with detectable heartbeats. If the defendant is found guilty of aborting such a child or aiding and abetting in such an abortion, the prosecuting party could win $10,000.

HB4146 would allow an individual to file a lawsuit against a person who "commits an act of sexual assault or domestic abuse or causes an unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstances; knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets a sexual assault or domestic abuse or causes an unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstances; or intends to engage in that act or conduct." If the defendant is found guilty, the prosecutor would be awarded $5,000, and $5,000 would be added to the "State Abortion Freedom Expansion Fund." That fund will be used "to pay the costs of abortions for pregnant persons who travel to Illinois from states that prohibit abortions."

Keep watching this blog and subscribe to the IFRL newsletter to see more updates as the fall session approaches.

Cook County Board to Consider Resolution to "Cancel" Texans and Businesses

As a response to the passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act, the Cook County Board of Commissioners is set to consider a resolution next week that would prohibit county employees from traveling to Texas for county business and any official business with the Texas state government.

In addition, the resolution would sever the county's financial ties to any businesses that contributed to the campaigns of Texas politicians who supported the Texas Heartbeat Act.

The former part of this resolution is a performative effort that does neither grants abortion to Texas women nor helps the people of Cook County. The main people who might be hurt by this resolution are the employees and operators of hotels and restaurants in Texas. Even then, it is unlikely that the travels of Cook County employees were propping up those businesses.

The latter part is an attempt to force corporations to either take pro-abortion political stances or lose the ability to get contracts with the Cook County government. This kind of litmus test is a dangerous attempt to force corporations to support the deaths of unborn children or take a financial hit.

If the Cook County Board of Commissioners passes this resolution, it will emphasize its abortion advocacy and its desire to meddle in the legislative affairs of other states.

The sponsors of this proposal include Cook County Commissioners Kevin Morrison, Alma Anaya, and Brandon Johnson.

September 29, 2021

UN Officials Tell Supreme Court to Maintain Abortion Precedent

The United Nations is using its power in an attempt to influence a Supreme Court case challenging the legality of abortion in the United States.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health is set to be heard by the Supreme Court this December. In this case, abortion advocates challenged a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks gestation. Mississippi is asking the court to overturn its Roe v. Wade ruling, which created a federal right to abortion.

An amicus brief filed by UN officials is arguing that overturning Roe v. Wade would violate international human rights law.

This is a new kind of intrusion by the UN into the US legal system. The Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings based on the text of the Constitution, not the whims of foreign governments. Despite this, the UN officials make no attempt to cite the US Constitution.

“The United States would contradict international human rights law by overturning its established constitutional protections for abortion access,” the experts say in their brief. Abortion is “necessary for women’s autonomy, equality and non-discrimination,” they argued.

In their brief, the UN officials openly stated that they deny unborn babies the right to life: “The right to life emanating from human rights treaties does not apply prenatally,” they wrote.

Illinois University Professors Argue that Texas Abortion Ban Harms Trans Men

Last week, professors from Northwestern University argued in the school's online publication that the Texas Heartbeat Act could have particularly negative effects for transgender men. In doing so, the professors argued that the value of maintaining one person's emotional health outweighs the value of unborn human life.

The Texas Heartbeat Act bans abortion when the baby's heartbeat is detectable, which is usually at six weeks.

The Northwestern professors wrote in Northwestern Now that,
"A trans man living in Texas may choose to conceal his transgender status to coworkers, friends and even in-laws to protect himself from violence and gender dysphoria. As his abdomen grows due to a pregnancy for which he can no longer legally get an abortion, however, keeping identity private in public spaces may become next to impossible.

The abortion ban in Texas imposes the burden of pregnancy — and with it, the burden of potential dysphoria, being outed or violence — on trans and gender nonconforming individuals without viable alternative choices."

Setting aside the arguments surrounding the idea of transgenderism, the professors' argument is troubling on a humanitarian level. One human life should not be ended for the sake of another person's emotional or mental health. All lives have value, and the choice offered by abortion disregards that value.

By intentionally ending the life of a human being, abortion cannot be considered "health care" as the Northwestern professors assert.

Click here to read more.

September 28, 2021

Pro-Life Legislators Ask DOJ to Investigate Illegal Fetal Tissue Research

Last week, pro-life legislators sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and NIH Director Francis Collins requesting an investigation into controversial fetal tissue research conducted by the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt).

Recent reports from the NIH suggest that the university may have been endangering women (and violating federal law) by altering abortion procedures for the purpose of obtaining more intact fetal tissue. Even more disturbingly the same reports suggest that researchers may have been harvesting organs from babies capable of surviving outside of their mothers' wombs. All the while, Pitt's research received approximately $1.5 million in taxpayer funding from the NIH.

“Exploiting the body parts of aborted children for research purposes is repulsive and should stop, regardless of the outcome hoped for by researchers,” the letter reads. “Research using abortive fetal tissue is unethical, wrong, and has also been proven ineffective. Despite being used in clinical research since the 1920s, fetal tissue has not produced a single clinical treatment.”

The letter was led by Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Steve Daines (R-MT) along with Reps. Lisa McClain (R-MI) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO).

Legislators who co-signed the letter include Illinois Reps. Rodney Davis (R) and Mike Bost (R).

Texas Bans Mail Delivery of Abortion Pills

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R)
After the Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect on Sept. 1, pro-abortion activists began circumventing the law by mailing abortion pills to women from overseas. In response, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot signed a new law that will prohibit the mail delivery of abortion drugs effective December 2, 2021.

“The Texas legislature understood that the Abortion Cartel would fall back on the mail delivery of abortion drugs to bypass the Heartbeat Act and took action to prevent that scheme.  Their forward-thinking will save innocent lives,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

The law reads that “A manufacturer, supplier, physician, or any other person may not provide to a patient any abortion-inducing drug by courier, delivery, or mail service.”

Additionally, the law limits the use of abortion drugs to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, requires abortionists to examine women in person to rule out pregnancy conditions that would cause complications if the women took abortion drugs, and requires abortionists to report adverse effects caused by Mifeprex when used to induce abortions.

September 27, 2021

House Passes Legislation to Codifying Abortion Rights

Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755). If passed by the Senate, this legislation would override most state pro-life laws and codify a right to abortion in federal law.

The House voted 218 to 211 (mostly along party lines) in favor of the Women's Health Protection Act. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was the only Democrat to vote against the bill.

The Women's Health Protection Act prohibits states from enforcing most abortion regulations, mandates taxpayer funding of abortion, and could require health care workers to participate in abortions against their consciences.

September 24, 2021

Women's Health Protection Act Threatens to Codify Abortion Rights

Pro-abortion legislators in Washington are pushing to pass the deceptively named Women’s Health Protection Act. The bill does not protect women or their access to healthcare, but it does codify into law a right to abortion up until the moment of birth. Further than that, it could remove conscience protections for doctors who refuse to participate in abortions.

“The Women’s Health Protection Act is designed to remove all legal protections for unborn children on both the federal and state levels,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRLC). “The Women’s Health Protection Act is, in effect, the Abortion-Without-Limits-Until Birth Act.”

Tobias continued, “The only ones to benefit from this legislation would be abortionists and abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. This legislation endangers women and their unborn children, would expand taxpayer funding of abortion, and would no longer require that a woman be given information about the development of her unborn child.”

If the “Women’s Health Protection Act” is passed into law, a variety of pro-life protections would be nullified. These include informed consent laws, waiting period laws, laws protecting the consciences of pro-life doctors, and laws preventing non-doctors from carrying out abortions.

According to a report from The Heritage Foundation, the law would also block states from enforcing laws that:
  • restrict discriminatory abortions based on race, sex, or genetic abnormality
  • ban post-viability abortions
  • introduce safety requirements for chemical abortions
  • restrict taxpayer funding of abortion
“According to pro-abortion groups, if this law is enacted, abortion-on-demand would be allowed in all 50 states, even if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned. Elective abortion would become the procedure that must always be facilitated – never delayed, never impeded to the slightest degree,” said Jennifer Popik, J.D., director of Federal Legislation for National Right to Life.

Even pro-abortion Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supports codifying Roe v. Wade into law, said that she believes the bill goes too far. She argues that the pro-abortion bill would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by taking protections away from medical professionals who don't want to participate in abortions.

The Women's Health Protection Act does not just codify Roe v. Wade. It undoes many state and federal pro-life laws deemed constitutional even under current pro-abortion Supreme Court precedent.

September 23, 2021

Biden to Direct $10 Million in Grants to Abortion Businesses after Texas Heartbeat Act

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Last week, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra announced a “three-pronged Department-wide response” to the Texas Heartbeat Act. This includes distributing up to $10 million of taxpayer funding to abortion businesses in and near Texas.

The department says that it will award grants to any abortion businesses that “can demonstrate a need resulting from an influx of clients as a result of SB 8.” This includes Texas abortion businesses rushing to abort unborn babies before their heartbeats are detectable as well as abortion businesses out of state as women travel for abortions.

The HHS said that it plans to give abortion businesses additional funding in response to an “anticipated increase” in demand for “emergency contraception” and abortion drugs.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid also issued a memo suggesting that doctors could be removed from Medicare and Medicaid if they deny abortion to a woman with an “emergency medical condition.” The memo argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act enables the government to impose civil and monetary penalties against hospitals or individuals that don't offer abortion in some cases.

Supreme Court Announces Hearing Date for Dobbs Case

On Sept. 20, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization starting on Dec. 1. The highly anticipated case could challenge Supreme Court precedent regarding abortion.

The case is a challenge to Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which restricts abortion after 15 weeks gestation. While defending the law, the state of Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Roe v. Wade. The law includes exceptions for when the mother's life or “major bodily function” is at risk. It also includes an exception for when the unborn child is diagnosed with a condition that is “incompatible with life outside the womb.”

The Supreme Court will consider, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional.”

President Biden's Justice Department filed an amicus brief Monday requesting the court to maintain the current legal framework for legalized abortion.

Click here to read more.

September 22, 2021

Google Quashes Abortion Pill Reversal Ads

Rebekah Hagan with her son Zechariah, whose
life was saved from the abortion pill by
Abortion pill reversal.
Photo from the 2020 March for Life/Lisa Bourne
After receiving pressure from pro-abortion activists, Google has canceled advertisements for Abortion Pill Reversal.

Pro-abortion activists from the London-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) called on Google and Facebook to remove advertisements for Abortion Pill Reversal. The group relied on a discredited and incomplete study designed to debunk APR. 12 women had taken the first abortion pill in that study, and 3 of them experience hemorrhaging. Of those three, only one of them had taken progesterone, the drug used in abortion pill reversal. The study was rightly canceled due to the injuries women were facing. The study fails to prove that those injuries were caused by progesterone. While only one of the three injured women had taken progesterone, all three had taken the abortion pill.

“In a dramatic and unprecedented move, Google has sided squarely with extremist pro-abortion political ideology, banning the pro-life counterpoint and life-saving information from being promoted on their platform,” Live Action founder Lila Rose told CNA in a statement.

Rose said that on Sept. 13, Google took down all of Live Action's advertisements for abortion pill reversal. Google accused the advertisements of containing false information. Before Google took action on Sept. 13, the tech giant had run them for over four months.

Heartbeat International, which manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and its 24/7 helpline, was also targeted by Google's censorship.

“Women deserve to know the truth about all their options,” said Heartbeat International Vice President Betty McDowell. “That is why it is disappointing to see Big Tech kowtow to Big Abortion in the latest attack against pregnancy help.”

“By removing Abortion Pill Reversal ads from Google and Facebook—two of the largest tech companies in the world—these companies silence the only viable option for women who seek to reverse the effects of the abortion pill,” McDowell said.

Texas Abortionist Sued After He Admits to Breaking Texas Heartbeat Act

After a Texas abortionist openly admitted to breaking the Texas Heartbeat Act, two non-Texas residents filed lawsuits against him. While this may be the first instance of the Texas Heartbeat Act being used to take legal action against an abortionist, the two men filing these lawsuits seem to be using the situation as an opportunity to challenge the law rather than protect life.

San Antonio abortionist Dr. Alan Baird wrote on the opinion page of The Washington Post Sunday that he had violated the Texas Heartbeat Act on Sept. 6 by aborting an unborn baby who had a heartbeat. He wrote that he did this because he had “a duty of care to this patient...and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits abortionists from ending the lives of babies whose heartbeats can be detected, which usually happens around six weeks gestation. The law is enforced by individuals, who have the ability to file lawsuits against abortionists and those who assist in facilitating abortions. These can be people who pay for abortions or those who provide transportation. The mothers of these children can't be sued under the law.

The two men filing lawsuits against Dr. Baird include Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas man currently serving a 15-year house arrest sentence for tax evasion, and Felipe Gomez, a pro-abortion Illinoisan. Stilley told the New York Times that he is "not pro-life" and he hopes to collect the money he could be awarded by winning his suit. Gomez said that he would donate any winnings to pro-abortion activist groups.

“Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives,” John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, told the New York Times.

September 21, 2021

Pope Francis to Reporters: "Abortion is murder."

Pope Francis
Pope Francis addressed the press while traveling on the papal plane last week. While taking a question about abortion, he emphatically told them that abortion is not simply a political issue, it is murder.

"Abortion is more than an issue. Abortion is murder. Abortion, without hinting: whoever performs an abortion kills. You take any embryology textbook of those students that study in medical school. At the third week of conception, at the third, many times before the mother notices, all the organs are already there. All of them. Even the DNA. […]"

"It’s a human life, period. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear. And to those who can’t understand it I would ask two questions: Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically it is a human life. Second question: Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? I said this publicly […] when I did, I said it to [Radio] COPE, I have wanted to repeat it. And period. Don’t continue with strange discussions: Scientifically it’s a human life. The textbooks teach us that. But is it right to take it out to solve a problem? This is why the Church is so strict on this issue because accepting this is kind of like accepting daily murder."

Click here to read a full transcript of the Pope's remarks.

Federal Judge Denies Biden DOJ Request to Block Texas Heartbeat Act

Federal District Judge Robert Pitman on Sept. 16 denied a request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to block enforcement of the Texas Heartbeat Act.

The DOJ lawsuit has a hearing date scheduled for Oct. 1, but it petitioned Judge Pitman to grant a temporary restraining order against the Texas Heartbeat Act's enforcement until the case is decided. In a victory for pro-life advocates, Judge Pitman (an Obama appointee) denied the DOJ's request. This means that the Texas Heartbeat Act will see enforcement for the time being.

Judge Pitman refused a request by the DOJ to hold the hearing sooner, saying that Texas "wished to be heard." The state has until Sept. 29 to argue its case. After that, the DOJ will have until Oct. 1 to respond.

Renae Eze, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's press secretary, gave a response to Judge Pitman's Oct. 1 hearing date. “The most precious freedom is life itself. Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion,” Eze said in statement to The Hill. “Unfortunately, President Biden and his Administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn.”

Click here to read more.

September 20, 2021

20 States File Brief Against South Carolina Heartbeat Law

IL Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D)
On Sept. 15, the attorneys general from 20 states and Washington D.C. filed a joint amicus brief in support of a pro-abortion lawsuit challenging a South Dakota heartbeat law.

The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act requires that women first receive ultrasounds before having an abortion. If the ultrasound detects the unborn baby's heartbeat, aborting that baby would be illegal. A fetal heartbeat becomes detectable around the six-week mark.

Planned Parenthood predictably filed a lawsuit challenging the law after it was signed in February. It has been blocked from enforcement pending the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall.

The brief was co-signed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. Additionally, it was signed by the Attorneys General from Virginia, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

“South Carolina’s law prevents women from accessing essential medical care, potentially resulting in permanent long-term health impacts or even fatalities,” Raoul said in a press release. “The restrictive laws being enacted by states like South Carolina do not stop abortions. They jeopardize women’s lives by making it more difficult to receive safe abortions. Women have the right to make their own decisions about abortion care in consultation with their health care providers, and I will continue to oppose measures that deprive them of that right.”

Abortion restrictions do not make women less safe. Abortion providers who neglect abortion laws make women less safe. Women who attempt dangerous self-administered abortion procedures are risking the safety of themselves and their children. Abortion restrictions simply acknowledge the humanity of unborn children and seek to provide them the protection they deserve.

September 17, 2021

South Dakota Appeals Decision Blocking Counseling Requirement for Women Seeking Abortion

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)
In 2011, South Dakota lawmakers passed HB 1217. This pro-life law, among other things, required pregnant women to consult with a pregnancy help center before scheduling an abortion. In August, Judge Karen Schreier refused to dissolve the injunction she issued against the consultation part of the law over a decade ago.

In response, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announced on Sept. 15 that the South Dakota legal team retained American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) attorney Jay Sekulow to join the South Dakota legal team in the Planned Parenthood v. Noem case. She had already promised that the state would 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,” Gov. Noem said at the time of Judge Schreier’s decision. “I look forward to the day when all life – born and unborn – is protected by law.”

Gov. Noem continued that Schreier's refusal to dissolve her injunction means “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.”

7th Circuit Rules in Favor of Texas Pro-Life Activist Sued for Defamation

On Sept. 3, the 7th District Court of Appeals in Texas unanimously ruled to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against pro-life activist Mark Lee Dickson. The lawsuit was filed by the pro-abortion Lilith Fund, a group that helps women pay for abortions.

The lawsuit accused Dickson of defamation and conspiracy. Dickson, who is the Director of Right to Life of East Texas and the founder of the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative, criticized a Lillith Fund billboard that read, "Abortion is Freedom." Dickson said that the billboard advocated “for the murder of… innocent lives,” and he pointed out that Texas statutes prior to Roe v. Wade criminalized abortion.

The 7th Circuit ruled that Dickson's criticisms were protected by the constitution, saying that the lower court had "erred" in allowing the case to get as far as it had. The court ruled that the Lilith Fund must pay Dickson's court costs and attorney fees.

September 16, 2021

Appeals Court Lifts Injunction Against Indiana Abortion Laws

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Wednesday to lift an injunction placed against multiple Indiana abortion laws last month. This means that Indiana can enforce five previously blocked abortion laws while the appeals process continues.

The laws require that
  • all second-trimester surgical abortions occur in licensed surgical centers or hospitals
  • women receive abortion pills only during in-person visits with physicians
  • patients receive in-person physical examinations before having abortions
  • abortion pills never be distributed through the mail via telemedicine
Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker had struck down these laws in August, but Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita appealed her ruling. “We would expect our commonsense laws to be upheld as the appeal continues,” Rokita said in a statement. “Protecting the culture of life is the top priority of my office, and we will continue fighting for every life alongside our legislative partners.”

The Seventh Circuit ruling notes that the state has a good chance at winning its legal battle supporting the pro-life laws.

DOJ Pushes Federal Judge to Block Texas Heartbeat Act

This Tuesday, as part of the lawsuit the Biden Department of Justice filed against Texas last week, DOJ attorneys asked a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction against Texas's new law prohibiting abortions of unborn children whose heartbeats are detectable.

DOJ attorneys argued that an injunction "is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas and the sovereign interest of the United States in ensuring that its States respect the terms of the national compact."

Earlier this month, the Supreme court ruled on technical grounds that abortion providers had not made a sufficient case against the Texas Heartbeat Act. They made a 5-4 decision declining to block the law's enforcement, but that decision did not rule on the constitutionality of the Heartbeat Act's enforcement. Legal challenges could still make their way to the Supreme Court and potentially get a different result.

Texas's heartbeat act is resistant to normal means of legal challenges because it is enforced via civil lawsuits rather than direct action by Texas officials. Individuals in Texas can file lawsuits against abortionists or those who assist in the abortions of children with detectable heartbeats.

September 15, 2021

6th Circuit Blocks Enforcement of Tennessee Pro-Life Law

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling on Friday, Sept. 10 blocking the enforcement of pro-life Tennessee law.

The law takes several steps to reduce the number of abortions in Tennessee. Except in cases where abortion is deemed necessary to save the mother's life, the law bans
  • discriminatory abortions due to race, sex, or Down Syndrome diagnosis
  • abortions after the unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable
  • abortions for juveniles currently in the custody of the Department of Children's services. Additionally, the option to receive a waiver from a judge was removed for this circumstance
The law also requires abortion clinics to provide information to women informing them about abortion pill reversal.

The law further includes tiered bans on abortion. If the courts conclude that the six-week ban (the heartbeat portion of the law) is unconstitutional, "cascading bans" can go into effect. The law automatically enacts abortions at eight, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 weeks of gestation in the case that courts strike down bans at younger gestational ages. While courts have enjoined the law pending decisions on its constitutionality, none of these bans are enforceable.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)