Federal Judge Dismisses Satanic Temple Lawsuit Against Indiana Pro-life Law

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R)

On October 25, US District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed the Satanic Temple's lawsuit challenging Indiana's post-Roe law protecting the unborn from abortion.

Indiana SEA 1, signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb in August 2022, protects unborn children from abortion except in cases of rape, incest, pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk, or when the child is diagnosed with a fatal anomaly. The Satanic Temple's lawsuit alleged that Indiana's law conflicted with the First Amendment and Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Magnus Stinson ruled that the Satanic Temple did not have standing to sue because it does not run any abortion clinics in the state (though it does run a telehealth clinic in New Mexico). Further, Stinson wrote in her decision that the Satanic Temple failed to present any evidence that one of its members was harmed by the law.

“This lawsuit was ridiculous on its face, but this court decision is important because it sustains a pro-life law that is constitutionally and legally sound,” Indiana Attorney General Rokita said in a press release. “We Hoosiers continue to build a solid culture of life whether satanic cultists like it or not.”

Click here to read more.

"Pro-Life Spider-man" Climbs Accenture Tower in Chicago; Raises $20,000 for Pregnant Single Mother

Maison DesChamps, a 24-year-old free climber known as the "pro-life spider-man" was arrested after climbing the 40-story Accenture Tower in Chicago. DesChamps climbs skyscrapers without ropes or harnesses in an effort to raise money for vulnerable pregnant women considering abortion.

This is not DesChamps's first arrest for a pro-life climb, and it is unlikely to be the last. CNA reports that DesChamps was arrested on six of seven climbs.

His October 10 climb of Accenture Tower raised $20,000 for a woman named Sierra, a 27-year-old woman who facing a difficult situation after being abandoned by the father of her unborn child.

“I don’t mind going to jail if it’s going to save a life,” he told CNA.

“I don’t encourage people going out and breaking the law. But the truth is, we can only follow the law until the law of our government gets in the way of the law of our God,” he said.

“One of the commandments that God’s given us is to rescue those who are being led into death. So if we have to do a sit-in, I don’t see a problem with that. If we climb a building, it’s not a big deal. I don’t think we should go around and vandalize and be nefarious. I don’t encourage that whatsoever. But we have to make a statement to save these children.”

Click here to read more.

Maine Law Allowing Abortion at Any Stage Takes Effect

On October 25, Maine's new law legalizing abortion until birth for any reason took effect.

LD 1619 states, “After viability an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary in the professional judgment of a physician.” Because the physician who determines the "necessity" of an abortion can be the abortionist, the law essentially removes all limits on abortion in Maine.

The bill was introduced by Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who signed it into law on July 19. Mills said in a press release that the bill “puts the decision about whether to have an abortion later in pregnancy in the hands of women and their doctors — not politicians or lawyers, ensuring that patients can get care they need, when they need it.”

Maine Right to Life Executive Director Karen Vachon told the National Catholic Register, “It’s barbaric, it’s extreme, it’s one of the worst in the country and in all of the world.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Rep Mike Johnson Elected Speaker of the House

US Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)

On October 25, pro-life Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) was elected as speaker of the US House of Representatives.

Johnson is a constitutional law attorney representing Louisiana's 4th district. He has served as vice chair of the House Republican Conference and has co-sponsored pro-life legislation. He is the lead sponsor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would make it a crime to knowingly transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without first satisfying parental involvement laws in the minor’s state of residence.

Before he became a Representative, he served as legal counsel to Louisiana Right to Life. “We congratulate Speaker Mike Johnson,” said Ben Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life. “Speaker Johnson has been a strong ally of the pro-life movement and Louisiana Right to Life. Speaker Johnson will be a proudly pro-life Speaker of the House who will protect babies and help moms.”

“National Right to Life congratulates Speaker Mike Johnson,” stated Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Speaker Johnson is committed to the right to life, and he will make the right to life and protecting women and their unborn children a priority in Congress.”

Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Heartbeat Law, Reversing Lower Court Decision

On October 24, the Georgia Supreme Court voted 6-1 to uphold a pro-life state law protecting unborn children from abortion after their heartbeats become detectable (six weeks gestation).

The Georgia  Supreme Court's decision reversed a decision by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who ruled Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act was "unequivocally unconstitutional" because it was enacted in 2019 when Roe v. Wade was still precedent. The Georgia Supreme Court allowed the state to enforce its law while it considered the case on appeal.

Georgia Supreme Court Justice Verda Colvin wrote for the majority, “When the United States Supreme Court overrules its own precedent interpreting the United States Constitution, we are then obligated to apply the Court’s new interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning on matters of federal constitutional law.”

In his decision for the lower court, McBurney wrote that the LIFE Act could not become law because it was unconstitutional under the precedent of Roe v. Wade at the time it was enacted. The Georgia Supreme Court majority opinion noted that McBurney's decision was based on the "faulty premise" that the US Supreme Court changed the meaning of the US Constitution when it overturned Roe v. Wade.

The US Supreme Court cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. That can only be done via Constitutional amendment. The US Supreme Court only found that the Roe v. Wade decision was an incorrect interpretation of the existing Constitution.

The Georgia Supreme Court returned the case to McBurney to rule on the claim that the Georgia Constitution contains a "right to privacy" that would render the LIFE Act unconstitutional.

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Colorado APR Ban

Bella Health cofounders Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett

Illinois is not the only state infringing on the First Amendment rights of pro-life clinics. In a similar victory to District Judge Iain Johnston's injunction against Illinois's SB 1909, a Colorado law prohibiting pro-life care was temporarily blocked by another federal judge.

On October 21, Federal District Judge Daniel D Domenico granted a preliminary injunction blocking Colorado's new law that would punish pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) for offering abortion pill reversal (APR).

The new law classifies abortion reversal treatment as "unprofessional conduct" to be disciplined by state medical boards.

Some pro-life PRCs offer APR to pregnant mothers who regret taking the first abortion pill and want to save the lives of their unborn children. To do so, these centers prescribe progesterone. Progesterone is a naturally occurring pregnancy hormone that helps regulate the flow of oxygen and nutrients to unborn children.

Mifepristone, the first drug in the abortion pill regimen, ends a child's life by disrupting a mother's natural progesterone. Mifepristone kills the child by starvation and asphyxiation. Progesterone prescriptions, which are also used to help mothers facing difficult pregnancies, can help overcome the effects of mifepristone and save lives.

The injunction comes after Bella Health filed a lawsuit challenging the anti-PRC law. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represents Bella Health in this challenge. In a press release celebrating the injunction, the Bella Health cofounders Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett wrote, “Some of [the women seeking APR] have had abortion pills forced on them, and others change their minds. We are relieved and overjoyed to continue helping the many women who come to our clinic seeking help.”

Domenico wrote in his decision that Colorado's law "runs afoul of" First Amendment principles. “Because it does, the State must come forward with a compelling interest of the highest order to maintain the law. It has not even attempted to do so.”

Domenico's injunction means that Colorado cannot enforce the anti-APR law while the lawsuit proceeds. Colorado has 30 days to appeal the injunction to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals should the state choose to do so.

Click here to read more.

Study Shows Many Americans Don't Understand What "Abortion" is

New polling suggests that there is significant confusion among Americans regarding what constitutes an "abortion."

In September, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute released its findings in a study asking Americans whether certain situations could be defined as abortions. Alicia VandeVusse, lead author of the study, told NPR, “Our biggest takeaway is that people do not hold a shared standard definition of what is and isn’t an abortion. We found that there’s a lot of nuance and ambiguity in how people are thinking about these issues and understanding these issues.”

One question described a deceased fetus being removed from the mother's womb after a miscarriage. Surprisingly, one-third of the 2,000 respondents said that this qualified as an "abortion."

Part of this issue is created by deceptive political messaging by pro-abortion groups. Advertisements claim that pro-life laws would punish women who experience miscarriage or it would imprison women who have abortions. These statements are simply not true.

Miscarriage does not fall under any legal definition of abortion, because it does not involve the intentional killing of a living unborn child. During miscarriage care, a child who regretfully died before birth is removed from a mother's womb. This is significantly different from abortion. Abortion kills a child who was alive before the procedure started.

Similarly, advertisements that claim pro-life laws imprison mothers who undergo abortions are deceptive. The pro-life state laws penalize the abortionists who end the lives of unborn children. These laws do not penalize vulnerable mothers who were swayed into abortion.

Pro-life advocates need to speak clearly and frequently to prevent this deceptive messaging from manipulating debates.

Click here to read more.

University of Pittsburgh Board Confronted Over Research Using Body Parts Harvested from Aborted Babies

Piotrus / Wikimedia Commons

On October 9, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Magee-Womens Hospital Board of Directors held its first public board meeting in four years. The board closed its meetings for public attendance one month after it published controversial research in which scalp tissue harvested from aborted children was grafted onto mice and rats.

Notably, the research received funding from the National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases.

The board was cited for violating state code in March. Pennsylvania code requires the board to hold annual public meetings, and the University of Pittsburgh violated that code by choosing to only meet behind closed doors.

Retired Superior Court Judge Cheryl Allen is one of many pro-lifers who rebuked her alma mater at the meeting. She said she was “extremely disturbed” by the research. She also criticized the hospital's consent form for fetal tissue donation. She argued that the wording “entices women who are at their most vulnerable.” She compared the research to research philosophy to that of Nazi scientists, who justified unethical medical experiments on Jewish prisoners by believing they would benefit the rest of society.

Rob Rutenbar, the university's senior vice chancellor for research, revealed during the meeting that the university received a subpoena from the HHS Office of Inspector General for fetal tissue research documentation. HHS Inspector General Christi Grimm has not yet released the results of her office's investigation, but she promised to follow up after receiving a letter from concerned members of Congress last May.

Click here to read more.

University of New Mexico Charges Pro-Life Student Group over $5,000 to Host Event

The conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is fighting back against the University of New Mexico (UNM) after it charged thousands of dollars in security fees to hold a pro-life event.

The Students for Life chapter at UNM was charged $5,461 in security fees to hold a campus event in April 2023. In response, ADF senior counsel Travis Barham sent a letter demanding that UNM rescind the fees, which it argues were determined based on the students' pro-life viewpoint. The fees paid for the presence of 30 officers from the University of New Mexico Police Department. UNM determined that the presence of the officers was necessary "based on the size and type of event."

“Ultimately, the University’s Police Department and Special Events Committee considers whatever it wants, determines on its own whether security is needed, determines on its own how much security presence is needed, and sends the bill to the speaker,” ADF's letter states. “There are no meaningful—and certainly no objective or narrowly drawn—limits on these entities’ discretion. This is unconstitutional.”

“Universities have a duty to protect the speech of all students, and by charging Students for Life over $5,000 in security fees, the University of New Mexico is violating that duty,” Barham said in a statement. 

“When a university discriminates against students based on the content of their speech, which includes how others might respond to it, that speech is not free. In fact, it is very expensive. As we explain in our letter, UNM officials exercised unbridled discretion by concluding that the group’s critics and opponents might misbehave, which as it turns out, they did not. This is a reason for granting more protection, not higher fees, and we urge the university to rescind the fee and demonstrate it truly values free speech.”

“Pro-life students should not be forced to pay a free speech fine,” said Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins. “The trend of schools using fees and security costs as a deterrent to pro-life student activity is not only unconstitutional, it contradicts the very nature of education itself, in which educators are supposed to bring ideas and people together for an informed and constructive debate.” 

ADF's letter asks that UNM rescind the security fees by October 25 or face legal action.

Click here to read more.

New York PRC Survey Signals Oncoming Crackdown Against Pro-Life Charities

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D)

As part of a new trend in which pro-abortion state governments crack down on pro-life pregnancy centers, New York has mandated that pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) complete probing surveys that will be used to create new restrictive rules and laws.

The New York State Department of Health sent surveys to PRCs late last month with various sensitive questions. The surveys ask about the organizations' connections, funding sources, and how often they collect and transmit information about abortion. PRCs are required to complete these surveys in accordance with a law signed by NY Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in 2022.

According to the new law, these surveys will be used to determine how PRCs impact women's ability to "obtain accurate and non-coercive health care information." Pro-abortion politicians and bureaucrats will use the information gathered by these surveys to brainstorm rules and legislation that would penalize PRCs.

Illinois has taken similar action with SB1909, which would penalize PRCs for "deception" including "the omission of any material fact." The law does not define "material fact," leading some to believe it would require PRCs to refer women for abortions. SB1909 was signed into law by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) in July, but it was blocked by a federal judge pending the outcome of a lawsuit by a coalition of PRCs.

Click here to read more.

American Medical Association to Debate Acceptance of Assisted Suicide

This fall, the American Medical Association (AMA) will debate resolutions that would change the organization's stance opposing assisted suicide.

The AMA's current code of ethics states,

"Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.

Physicians:

• Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.
• Must respect patient autonomy.
• Must provide good communication and emotional support.
• Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control."

Two out of the 50 draft resolutions that the AMA will consider during their conference in Maryland from November 10-14 would change this stance. Resolution 4 would reverse the AMA's position, while Resolution 5 would have the AMA adopt a neutral stance.

Both resolutions devalue human life and take steps toward allowing America's medical system to function like Canada's. Patients should not be treated like burdens. They deserve respect and care, even in the face of great difficulty and approaching death.

Click here to read more.

NPR Promotes Pro-Abortion Billboards Encouraging Abortion in Illinois

On October 11, taxpayer-funded NPR aired a second story focused on the pro-abortion billboards placed along Interstate 55 between pro-life states and Illinois.

The billboards, purchased by the Seattle-based "Shout Your Abortion," were created to combat pro-life signs by crisis pregnancy centers. The pro-abortion organization argued that the signs "traumatize" women traveling from pro-life states to Carbondale, where they can legally have abortions. The pro-abortion signs contain messages like "God's Plan Includes Abortion."

The NPR story takes several statements from Shout Your Abortion and pro-abortion groups, but it only included two sentences to represent the pro-life position.

"The group's founder, Mary Ann Kuharski, said their billboards generate about 500 calls per month, with a slight increase since the Dobbs Supreme Court decision.

'We don't argue,' she says. 'We don't use harsh words. We never even use the word abortion on our billboards.'"

For a taxpayer-funded news source that is supposed to be unbiased, NPR's piece appears to serve as free political advertising for pro-abortion groups more than anything else.

This is the second time NPR has promoted Shout Your Abortion and the billboards. The first story was published by NPR Illinois on September 12. This second story, aired on NPR's "Morning Edition" on October 11, went as far as to describe pro-life pregnancy centers as "so-called crisis pregnancy centers." The written version of the same story edited this line to read "often called 'crisis pregnancy centers.'"

Click here to read more.

Biden Rule Would Interpret Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Law to Require Employers to Cover Abortion

The Biden administration has proposed a rule that would interpret federal pregnancy nondiscrimination law to require employers to cover abortions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposed a rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which was passed into law in 2022. The law's language requires employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for women based on limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. The text does not mention abortion, but the EEOC's rule would interpret abortion as a "related medical condition."

“The Biden administration has gone rogue,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, the lead Republican co-sponsor of the PWFA.

“These regulations completely disregard legislative intent and attempt to rewrite the law by regulation. The Biden administration has to enforce the law as passed by Congress, not how they wish it was passed. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is aimed at assisting pregnant mothers who remain in the workforce by choice or necessity as they bring their child to term and recover after childbirth. The decision to disregard the legislative process to inject a political abortion agenda is illegal and deeply concerning.”

Representatives Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Mary Miller (R-IL) wrote a letter to EEOC chair Charlotte Burrows to demand that the EEOC rewrite the rule.

“The proposed rule defines ‘related medical conditions’ to include ‘use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, [and] endometriosis,’ among other treatments and conditions,” Reps. Foxx and Miller’s letter reads. “By including treatments and conditions such as these, the proposed rule stretches its interpretation of the PWFA past the breaking point. As explained above, Congress intended the PWFA to address commonplace workplace needs of pregnant workers, such as access to water, additional bathroom breaks, or provision of a stool or chair.”

Click here to read more.

CVS Gives Abortion Pill to Pregnant Mother in Prescription Mistake

photo credit: Mike Mozart / Flickr

A CVS pharmacy in Nevada has been penalized after it gave the abortion pill misoprostol to a woman who was prescribed fertility treatment in 2019.

The CVS was fined $10,000 in penalties issued last month. Two pharmacists involved in the mistake risk losing their licenses unless they pay separate fines, complete education courses, and have no further violations over the next year.

Timika Thomas, a mother of four, was prescribed Endometrin, a drug containing progesterone, to aid in her attempt to have another child through IVF. Thomas had two embryos implanted via IVF before this incident.

Progesterone is a pregnancy hormone that helps facilitate the transfer of oxygen and nutrients from a mother's body to her child. Doctors prescribe progesterone during IVF because the process inhibits the body's natural progesterone production.

Progesterone is also prescribed during difficult pregnancies to help prevent miscarriage. Similarly, some doctors prescribe progesterone to help mothers who regret taking the first abortion pill, mifepristone. This can help reverse the effects of mifepristone and save the unborn child's life.

In Thomas's case, CVS provided her with misoprostol. Misoprostol is the second drug in the abortion pill regimen. It induces labor, thereby removing the aborted child from a mother's womb. Court testimony by CVS staff described a series of mistakes leading to Thomas being given the wrong drug.

After Thomas took the drugs, she experienced painful stomach cramping caused by misoprostol. She searched online and found that she was prescribed an abortion pill, so she called CVS. Much like pro-life doctors, CVS pharmacists planned to try and rectify the mistake by getting injectable progesterone to Thomas, but this did not happen until the next day.

Thomas lost both children. It is unclear if the children were killed by misoprostol, or if they just didn't survive the IVF process. Regardless, Thomas's next pregnancy test came back negative.

CVS and Walgreens started carrying abortion pills earlier this year after the Biden FDA approved their distribution at pharmacies. Previously, FDA regulations required that they be distributed by the prescribing physicians.

Click here to read more.

Florida AG Asks State Supreme Court to Block Pro-Abortion Ballot Measure

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R)

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) is asking Florida's Supreme Court to block a proposed ballot measure that would amend the Florida Constitution and create a right to abortion. She argues that the measure's language deceives voters.

The proposed amendment states, "Except as provided in Article X, Section 22 [Florida's parental notification law], no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider."

Moody argues that the amendment fails to clearly define "viability." In an op-ed for Florida's Voice, Moody wrote,

"As just one example of how misleading this initiative is, the initiative creates a right to abortion through 'viability.' As any mother knows, 'viability' has two meanings when it comes to pregnancy.

First, it means whether a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally through delivery. Doctors can tell during the first trimester, usually around about 12 weeks, whether a pregnancy is viable and would have a much lower risk of miscarriage. For that reason, many women often wait to tell family and friends about their pregnancy until that time.

Second, viability is sometimes used to mean whether a baby can survive outside of the uterus, which currently is around 21 to 25 weeks of pregnancy. The two time periods, depending on your definition of viability, are starkly different, and the procedures performed to abort a baby’s life at either time period are dissimilar."

Moody's argument suggests that some voters could interpret the language as prohibiting abortion after 12 weeks gestation, since that is when the first definition of abortion would apply. Since more Americans support abortion during the first trimester, this could draw more voters to support the amendment.

"As attorney general, I have a constitutional and statutory duty to inform the Florida Supreme Court when ballot initiatives will confuse voters. Thus, I will file a brief with the court fulfilling that responsibility," Moody concluded.

Truthfully, the language of this amendment actually allows unlimited abortion. It allows a mother's "healthcare provider" to declare an abortion legal if it would protect the mother's "health." These terms are often interpreted broadly in court, such that the amendment would allow an abortionist (the person profiting from abortion) to declare the abortion necessary to protect a mother's mental or emotional health.

Click here to read more.

Kamala Harris at DNC: Protecting Babies from Abortion After Rape is "immoral"

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in St. Louis on Oct 6, Vice President Kamala Harris advocated against pro-life laws by arguing that protecting babies from abortion after rape is "immoral."

"...the policy proposal is essentially that after someone has survived a crime of violence to their body, a violation to their body, that they cannot have the authority to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral."

Only about 1% of women who have abortions make the decision because they became pregnant from rape. Further, many pro-life laws include exceptions for rape.

Regardless, the unborn child is not considered in Harris's statement. The baby is genetically distinct from the mother. Whether the unborn child is conceived in rape or not, violence against the mother is not rectified by enacting more violence against her child.

All the same, Harris doubled down by suggesting that Americans with pro-life beliefs should not advocate for pro-life laws. “...one does not have to abandon their faith, or deeply held beliefs, to agree the government should not be telling her what to do with her body.”

Harris's statements show a lack of understanding of the pro-life position. Pro-lifers work hard to support both mothers and their children through political advocacy and direct support (such as crisis pregnancy centers). Pro-life Americans feel that they have an obligation to protect victims and the needy. They choose to do so through pro-life advocacy.

Click here to read more.

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Blocking Parts of Idaho Pro-Life Law

On October 5, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided to lift an injunction prohibiting Idaho from enforcing a law that protects unborn children from abortion except in cases rape, incest, or health situations threatening the mother's life.

Biden's Department of Justice filed suit against Idaho in August of 2022, arguing that the law violated the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires stabilizing treatment for any conditions jeopardizing an individual's health. The Biden administration argued that Idaho's law's language was too restrictive, and it would have prohibited medical treatment legally required by EMTALA.

On August 24, 2022, District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (a Clinton appointee) issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from enforcing the pro-life law while the case continued. He agreed with the Biden administration that the law conflicted with EMTALA.

The 9th Circuit based its decision on the Idaho Supreme Court's interpretation of the pro-life law. The panel found that the law does not appear to be in conflict with EMTALA.

"The Supreme Court of Idaho clarified that the text of the exception means what it says: If a doctor subjectively believes, in his or her good faith medical judgment, that an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, then the exception applies. Thus the district court’s reliance on declarations of certain doctors claiming that the law would undermine their medical judgement is no longer valid."

Judge Lawrence VanDyke also wrote for the 9th Circuit panel,

"The purpose of EMTALA is not to impose specific standards of care— such as requiring the provision of abortion—but simply to “ensure that hospitals do not refuse essential emergency care because of a patient’s inability to pay.” To read EMTALA to require a specific method of treatment, such as abortion, pushes the statute far beyond its original purpose, and therefore is not a ground to disrupt Idaho’s historic police powers."

While the temporary injunction has been lifted, the DOJ's lawsuit still continues. Biden's DOJ could also ask an 11-judge panel from the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to reconsider the injunction.

Click here to read more.

US District Judge Blocks Provisions of Pro-Life North Carolina Law

On Sept 30, US District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an injunction blocking two provisions of a new North Carolina pro-life law.

One provision would have required all abortions after 12 weeks gestation to occur in hospitals. The other provision would have required doctors to confirm a mother's pregnancy before prescribing abortion-inducing drugs.

North Carolina's “Care for Women, Children, and Families Act” passed in May allows abortion until 12 weeks gestation. It includes exceptions for rape and incest up to 20 weeks gestation, and it allows abortion in cases of "life-limiting" fetal anomalies during the first 24 weeks. It allows abortion at any stage if the mother's life is in danger.

Lawmakers argued in a brief that the law protects women from abortion businesses that would unsafely prescribe abortion-inducing drugs without first ruling out conditions such as ectopic pregnancy. A mother with an ectopic pregnancy is at great risk of hemorrhage if she takes the abortion pill regimen.

Further, the lawmakers argued that abortion businesses are often unable to handle the life-threatening complications that can occur during surgical abortions after 12 weeks gestation. Women with post-abortion complications are often transported to hospitals to address these injuries.

Operation Rescue often documents incidents when women are hospitalized after surgical abortions at abortion businesses. Many of the more recent incidents were documented at abortion businesses in Illinois.

Judge Eagles's injunction will remain in effect while Planned Parenthood's legal challenge to the “Care for Women, Children, and Families Act” continues.

Click here to read more.

Gov. Pritzker Says Pornography in Schools Allows Children to "read different perspectives"

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker took to Twitter to celebrate how his administration is preventing local governments from controlling whether pornographic books are allowed in public schools and libraries. These radical books advocate for non-marital recreational sex, thus contributing to increased numbers of unplanned pregnancies and abortions among young people.

“Illinois became the first state in the nation to ban book bans earlier this year,” Pritzker said on X.

“2022 had the most attempted book bans on record for the ALA. It was time for us to act. 

Unlike Republicans, I want our children to read as much as they can and to read different perspectives.”

Illinois became the first state in the nation to ban book bans earlier this year.

2022 had the most attempted book bans on record for the ALA. It was time for us to act.

Unlike Republicans, I want our children to read as much as they can and to read different perspectives. pic.twitter.com/AyD3F3WEXG

— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) October 2, 2023

Earlier this year, Pritzker signed legislation empowering the state government to remove public funding from libraries and school districts if they enact bans against pornographic materials. The law was written in response to local governments removing progressive sexual materials from public libraries.

Harlem School District 122 is one such district that removed graphic sexual content such as the book "Gender Queer" from its shelves in response to parental backlash.

Click here to read more.

Texas AG Sues Yelp for Deceptively Labeling Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R)

On Sept 28, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced a lawsuit against Yelp for using "inaccurate and misleading language" to label Yelp pages for pro-life pregnancy centers. Paxton argues that the labels violated Texas's Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

A press release from Paxton's office reads,

"Yelp’s CEO is entitled to his views on abortion, but he was not entitled to use the Yelp platform to deceptively disparage facilities that counsel pregnant women instead of providing abortions. Yelp appended language to all pregnancy resource center Yelp pages, indicating that those pages 'typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.' That disclaimer is misleading and often untrue because pregnancy resource centers frequently do provide medical services with licensed medical professionals onsite."

Yelp removed the misleading labels after Paxton requested the company to do so earlier this year, but Paxton's lawsuit argues that Yelp "remains liable for penalties and other relief for the duration of its unlawful behavior." The lawsuit seeks an enjoining order preventing Yelp from taking similar actions in the future. It also seeks civil penalties and monetary damages.

Click here to read more.