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.

Police Evacuate Texas Right to Life Employees After Bomb Threat

Police evacuated Texas Right to Life employees from their headquarters on Friday, Sept. 10 after the pro-life organization received a bomb threat.

Texas Right to Life had received a bomb threat in an email. After that, a postal worker delivered a package that staff members deemed suspicious. They called the police, who immediately evacuated the building and called in the Houston Police Department's bomb squad. While x-ray review found that the package was not harmful, the police say that they will begin an investigation into the threat.

Bellaire Police Department Chief Onesimo Lopez told Fox News, “We take these kind of threats very seriously. Our Criminal Investigations Division is conducting an investigation into the threats and will follow up on any leads that develop. No other information is available at this time.”

Texas Right to Life received an influx of criticism from pro-abortion advocates shortly before the new Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect on Sept. 1. Texas Right to Life had volunteered to assist Texans in filing lawsuits against those who break the Texas Heartbeat Act. The Texas Heartbeat act empowers individuals in Texas to file lawsuits against those who abort babies with detectable heartbeats or those who aid in that process, such as paying for abortions or providing transportation (the mothers can't be sued under the law).

“We understand that some people will use violence to achieve their ends,” said Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham. “Sadly, the violence of abortion has been used for over 45 years so people can live as they wish; Texas Right to Life mourns violence both inside and outside of abortion facilities.”

“These recent crimes and conspiratorial acts against our work and our dedicated staff will not stop Texas Right to Life from ensuring that the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced,” Graham continued “We are resolved more than ever to strengthen programs and outreach to abortion-vulnerable women to empower them to choose life.”

September 14, 2021

Saint Xavier University in Chicago Covers Abortion in Student Health Plan

Saint Xavier University in Chicago—a Catholic school—is offering a student health care plan that includes abortion coverage for the second year in a row.

The College Fix reported on the plan last month. Its coverage noted that the Archdiocese of Chicago declined to comment on Saint Xavier University's policy.

“Benefits include abortion care services,” the student health insurance plan says. The plan also covers contraception and sterilization procedures.

Sarah Michalak, a Catholic SXU graduate who grew up in the Archdiocese of Chicago, now works as the Students for Life of America Upper Midwest Regional Coordinator. In an interview with The College Fix, she voiced her disappointment with her alma mater.

“As an alumna of Saint Xavier University, I am disappointed to see they are not upholding their Catholic ideals,” Michalak said. “Catholic universities should be beacons of life, love and truth. It’s the responsibility of Catholic universities to authentically care for their students, and abortion is not authentic support for pregnant and parenting students,”

“We know that abortion is not authentic support and we will fight for pregnant and parenting students and preborn babies,” Michalak said. “If the university is unaware of this inconsistency, we are hoping that they will correct their error immediately.”

Montana AG Asks Court to Dismiss Challenges to Pro-Life Laws

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen
Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit last month against the state of Montana over four pro-life laws passed in the state's most recent legislative session. Last Tuesday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen called on Yellowstone District Court to reject Planned Parenthood's attempt to have the laws blocked before they can be enforced.

The Montana laws include a ban on abortion after unborn children reach 20 weeks gestation, a requirement that women be given the option to view an ultrasound before having an abortion, informed consent requirements for abortion pills, a ban on the distribution of abortion pills through the mail, and a ban on federal exchange health plans in Montana from paying for abortions.

“Because the regulations at issue protect women from the very people who are suing against these laws, Planned Parenthood has no basis for asking the court to halt what the legislature had every prerogative to pass,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Denise Harle in a statement.

Without court intervention, the pro-life laws are set to take effect on October 1.

Click here to read more.

September 13, 2021

Pro-Abortion Groups File Lawsuits Against Oklahoma Pro-Life Laws

Oklahoma State Capitol
Several pro-abortion groups filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma in an attempt to block several pro-life laws from taking effect next month.

The pro-life laws in question take significant strides to reduce the number of abortions in Oklahoma. The potential abortion regulations that could restrict abortions in Oklahoma starting on Nov. 1 include the following:
  • medical professionals who abort children for reasons other than to save the mother's life or to “prevent substantial or irreversible physical impairment” would have their medical licenses suspended for at least one year
  • abortions after an unborn child's heartbeat can be detected would be prohibited
  • only doctors who are board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology would be allowed to commit abortions
  • the use of abortion pills would face multiple new regulations
The Oklahoman reports that the abortion organizations suing the state of Oklahoma over the pro-life laws include The Center for Reproductive Rights, multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates, the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, and others.

September 10, 2021

Biden Administration Sues Texas over Heartbeat Law

Attorney General Merrick Garland
On Thursday, the Biden administration announced its lawsuit against the state of Texas over its new law banning most abortions on unborn children with detectable heartbeats.

The Justice Department's complaint filed in a Texas federal district court argues that Texas acted “in open defiance of the Constitution” in restricting “most pre-viability abortions.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland further argued in favor of the filing. “The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Garland said. “The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights.”

The Justice Department's lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against state officials and “private parties who would bring suit under the law, from implementing or enforcing” the law.

This is the latest pro-abortion effort to block the democratically passed law. So far, the Texas Heartbeat Act has survived court challenges. The Supreme Court gave a 5-4 decision last week not to grant a temporary injunction against the Heartbeat Act's enforcement while the case goes through the lower courts. The Justice Department's case may provide another avenue for pro-abortion advocates to block the law's enforcement.

September 9, 2021

Website Hosting Service GoDaddy Deplatforms Texas Right to Life Whistleblower Site

Last week, website hosting service GoDaddy brought down Texas Right to Life's website designed to help Texans report violations of the new Texas Heartbeat Act. GoDaddy had originally hosted the website, but complaints from pro-abortion groups caused the company to refuse its service to Texas Right to Life.

Texas Right to Life responded in a press release,

"Pro-abortion advocates tried for over a week to overwhelm the website with traffic and fake tips. When they failed, keyboard warriors harassed GoDaddy to take down our site."

Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz wrote,

“We will not be silenced. If anti-Lifers want to take our website down, we’ll put it back up. No one can keep us from telling the truth. No one can stop us from saving lives. We are not afraid of the mob. Anti-Life activists hate us because we’re winning. Hundreds of babies are being saved from abortion right now because of Texas Right to Life, and these attacks don’t change that.”

At the time of writing, the website has not yet been reactivated with another hosting service. Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham told Fox Business that the group was in contact with several hosting services friendly to the pro-life cause, however. She anticipates that other pro-life groups will soon be switching hosts for their own websites, as well. “We’re just glad that they canceled,” Graham said, “because we were able to out them as siding with the abortion crowd, and what’s even better is that we don’t want the abortion affiliated platform hosting a pro-life website.”

South Dakota Gov. Signs Executive Order Banning Telemedicine Abortions

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)
On Sept. 7, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed an executive order preventing doctors from using telemedicine to prescribe abortion pills. Instead, doctors in South Dakota will need to see women in person to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol.

Before April 2021, the FDA required that women throughout the United States see doctors in person before being receiving prescriptions for the abortion pill regimen. The FDA "temporarily" lifted those requirements due to the pandemic, but pro-life advocates seem to be correct in doubting the Biden administration's intentions. The FDA has already announced plans to consider making permanent changes to how abortion drugs are prescribed. Those changes are expected to go into effect on November 1, 2021.

The FDA restrictions protected women by allowing doctors to confirm the gestational age of pregnancies and properly diagnose conditions such as ectopic pregnancy. If the unborn child's gestational age is older than the mother's guess, or if she has an ectopic pregnancy, going through with the abortion pill regimen can pose significant and deadly risks to the mother as well as her child.

The executive order demands that the South Dakota Department of Health adopt emergency rules including:
  • a requirement that physicians examine a pregnant mother in person before prescribing abortion pills
  • banning the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs via courier, delivery, telemedicine, or mail service
  • banning the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs in schools
  • requiring "pill only" clinics to obtain licenses in accordance with South Dakota's surgical abortion clinic licensing requirements
  • a requirement that the South Dakota Department of Health collects data on the frequency, complication rate, location, and sex trafficking context of the abortion pill

September 8, 2021

More States Announce Plans to Pass Texas-Style Heartbeat Laws

After seeing that Texas's new Heartbeat Act successfully passed and is now being enforced, other states have announced plans to enact similar legislation and save more unborn lives.

While the Texas Heartbeat Act has not yet made its way through all possible legal channels and may find itself in front of the Supreme Court once again, several states have taken note of the law's success so far. As a result, they have announced plans to draft similar bills to prevent unborn babies in other states from facing abortion.

According to PregnancyHelpNews.com, a subsidiary of Heartbeat International, pro-life lawmakers in Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota had all announced intentions to pass laws similar to the Texas Heartbeat Act.
  • Arkansas State Sen. Jason Rapert ordered a bill be filed in his state "to mirror the Texas SB8 bill."
  • Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson said that the Florida legislature is “already working” on a heartbeat act like the Texas one.
  • Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel said that he would "absolutely" consider filing legislation to match Texas SB8.
  • North Dakota Sen. Janne Myrdal confirmed that legislators in her state are discussing using the Texas Heartbeat Act a template for new legislation in their own state.
  • South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, whom some speculate might run for president in the 2024 election cycle, said that she directed her Unborn Child Advocate “to immediately review the new TX law and current South Dakota laws” and make sure South Dakota has the “strongest pro-life laws on the books.”

Biden Flops on Belief that Life Begins at Conception

photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Contradicting his own past statements, President Biden went on record last week stating that he does not believe life begins at conception.

During a press conference, a reporter asked him how he planned to respond to the new Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after an unborn child's heartbeat is detectable. As part of his response, Biden told reporters that he did not believe life begins at conception.

“I respect people who don’t support Roe v. Wade, I respect their views,” Biden said. “I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all — I respect that, don’t agree, but I respect that. I’m not gonna impose that on people.”


It's a scientific fact that a unique human being with DNA that is different from both parents is formed during conception. The idea that life begins at conception is also a part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Biden statement disputed these and his own past statements on whether life begins at conception.

In a 2008 interview with the National Catholic Register, Biden said he was “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”

He also involved this belief in his vice presidential debate against Rep. Paul Ryan. “Life begins at conception, that‘s the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.”

Biden reiterated this belief as recently as 2015 during an interview with America Magazine. In that interview, he said, “I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.”

September 7, 2021

Chicago Woman Rescues Abandoned Newborn Found in Trash

Screenshot from WGN News Video
Last month, a Chicago woman found a newborn baby amongst trash while she was looking for recyclable materials. When she opened the drawers of a dresser, she found the newborn baby boy with his umbilical cord still attached. Waste removal services would have taken the baby away with the trash that same day had the anonymous woman not searched the drawers.

The woman held the child until paramedics arrived.

Matthew Lang, one of the firefighters who responded to the emergency, told CBS 2, “I look out the window, and I just see this woman, hysterical, waving her arms.” He had expected the worst, but what he saw was reassuring. “We don’t know who put the baby there, but whoever did left a rosary. My mind went to ease as soon as I saw that baby moving and crying. It was almost surreal.”

Emergency responders took the baby to Lurie Children's Hospital for treatment. Lang went to Facebook to urge parents who feel like they can't take care of their babies to surrender babies to safe havens rather than leave them in the trash.

In Illinois, parents can safely and anonymously surrender newborns 30 days old or younger to any hospital, police station, fire station, or hospital. There will be no legal repercussions to the parents, and the child's life will not be endangered.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Pro-Lifers over Heartbeat Act

On Thursday, Sept. 2, the day after the Texas Heartbeat Act was allowed to go into effect, Planned Parenthood affiliates filed a lawsuit against Texas Right to Life, its Legislative Director John Seago, and 100 unnamed individuals. This is in an attempt to stop pro-lifers from filing lawsuits against Planned Parenthood affiliates under the new law, which bans abortions after an unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable. On Friday, Sept. 3, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted a temporary restraining order in Planned Parenthood's favor.

The judge ruled that the new threat of private lawsuits under the Texas Heartbeat Act creates "probable, irreparable, and imminent injury in the interim for which [Planned Parenthood] and their physicians, staff, and patients throughout Texas have no adequate remedy at law." Judge Gamble added that her ruling upholds Texas Supreme Court precedent, which holds that “the primary consideration for temporary emergency relief is preserving the status quo while courts consider whether plaintiffs have demonstrated a probable right to the relief sought.”

Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham responded in a statement,
“This lawsuit will not stop the work of Texas Right to Life. Estimates are that approximately 150 babies per day are being saved because of Texas Right to Life’s leadership on the Texas Heartbeat Act. Planned Parenthood can keep suing us, but Texas Right to Life will never back down from protecting pregnant women and preborn children from abortion.”

September 3, 2021

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.

September 2, 2021

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.

September 1, 2021

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.”

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.

August 31, 2021

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.

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.

August 30, 2021

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.

August 27, 2021

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.

August 26, 2021

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.

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.

August 25, 2021

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.

August 24, 2021

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.”

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.

August 23, 2021

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.

August 20, 2021

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.”

August 19, 2021

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.

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.

August 18, 2021

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.

Federal Judge Blocks HHS Mandate that Pro-Life Doctors Participate in Abortions

A federal court blocked an attempt by the Biden administration to resurrect an Obama era mandate that pro-life doctors participate in abortions as instructed by their employers. The mandate was similarly blocked by courts when the Obama administration attempted to impose it, but it's a relief to know that it won't be enforced this time either.

On Aug. 9, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a permanent injunction against the HHS mandate on the grounds that it violated the conscience protections of health care professionals. Judge Reed ruled in Franciscan Alliance, Inc. et al. v. Xavier Becerra that the HHS mandate would cause "irreparable harm" to religious liberty protections.

If the HHS was allowed to enforce the rule, pro-life doctors could face fines and other penalties.

“Here, Christian Plaintiffs contend that violation of their statutory rights under RFRA is an irreparable harm,” Judge Reed's ruling states. “The Court agrees and concludes that enforcement of the 2021 Interpretation forces Christian Plaintiffs to face civil penalties or to perform gender-transition procedures and abortions contrary to their religious beliefs—a quintessential irreparable injury.”

The ruling goes on to say that Becerra will be prohibited “from interpreting or enforcing” the law “in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures or abortions, including by denying Federal financial assistance because of their failure to perform or provide insurance coverage for such procedures or by otherwise pursuing, charging, or assessing any penalties, fines, assessments, investigations, or other enforcement actions.”

August 17, 2021

Granite City Abortion Clinic Hospitalized at Least 3 Patients Since March

A woman about to be transferred to a St. Louis Hospital
on June 16, 2021, after suffering complications from a
second-trimester abortion at Hope Clinic for Women
Reports from pro-life bystanders have confirmed that Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois has hospitalized at least three women since March of this year.

On March 20, 2021 video recorded by a pro-life bystander showed a woman in a gurney being carted into out of Hope Clinic and into an ambulance. Notably, the ambulance did not simply go across the street to Gateway Regional Medical Center. According to Operation Rescue, which records evidence of patients being hospitalized after visiting abortion clinics, that hospital is rarely used by the clinic. Instead, most of the hospitalized patients are sent to Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri.

Another woman was hospitalized at Hope Clinic on June 16, 2021. This woman was carted into an ambulance after suffering complications from a two-day abortion procedure. This ambulance similarly did not go to the hospital across the street from the Hope Clinic.

The two-day dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involves inserting a seaweed called laminaria into a woman's cervix, where it will dilate over the course of 24 hours. The woman then returns to the abortion clinic, and an abortionist uses the dilated opening to reach into the mother's womb with metal instruments designed to tear the baby apart limb from limb. This method can put the mother at risk of hemorrhage or infection. The abortionist could damage her womb with the metal instruments while trying to tear the baby's body apart, and body parts could be left in the mother's womb after the abortion is complete.

The third hospitalization at Hope Clinic occurred only a month ago on July 22, 2021. As this woman was being loaded into an ambulance on a gurney, she waived to pro-life onlookers who offered to pray for her. Two women were recorded entering the clinic while this happened.

Abortion is dangerous. Not only does it end the lives of innocent babies, but it also poses significant risks to the women who choose it. For patients at Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, this is especially true.