Texas Heartbeat Act Faces Lawsuit from Women who were Denied Care due to Pregnancy

The Texas Heartbeat Act, which remained incredibly sturdy during a series of legal challenges that took place before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, now faces a lawsuit from a group of women who claim they were denied medically-necessary abortions.

The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights is representing the group of women in this lawsuit. The lead plaintiff is Amanda Zurawski, who was denied medical care for an incompetent cervix at 18 weeks gestation. Texas doctors refused to provide treatment, citing the Heartbeat Act.

Pro-life laws in Texas already include an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger, but pro-life doctors argue that abortion is not required to treat any condition. Further, it is slower and less effective than pre-term delivery or a C-section.

Dr. Christina Francis, CEO-Elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told Live Action that doctors had several options to treat Zurawski that did not include abortion. “Many times, if infection is ruled out, women can be treated with a stitch, called a cerclage, which is placed in her cervix to hold the unborn baby in until he or she can survive outside the mother,” she said. “An attentive physician should be able to detect signs of infection early and, if present, provide the appropriate treatment – which would be induction of labor. This treatment is not prevented by any abortion restriction in the country.”

Texas Right to Life wrote in a press release that the plaintiffs experienced medical neglect, and the standard of care they experienced was not required by Texas law.

Plaintiffs are asking for Texas law to be clarified by creating a "binding interpretation" of medical exceptions to allow doctors to exercise "good faith judgment" to commit abortions. Texas Right to Life wrote that such exceptions would create loopholes and endanger the lives of the unborn.

Click here to read more.

Illinois Bills Threaten Pregnancy Resource Centers

photo credit: Mark Turner / Flickr

Legislation being considered by the Illinois House and Senate would allow the state Attorney General to launch investigations against pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) whenever he feels it is in the "public interest."

HB2463 and SB1909, titled the "Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Act" is another attempt by pro-abortion legislators to pass this anti-PRC since they were unable to pass a similar bill before the lame-duck session ended in January.

The bills would prohibit "a limited services pregnancy center from using or employing any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact" with the intent to "interfere" with a person trying to access abortion or "emergency contraception" (which can act as an abortifacient).

"Material fact" is not defined by the bill. Pro-lifers fear that an Attorney General could interpret this to require PRCs to provide information on how to obtain abortions.

Further, the bill empowers the Attorney General to launch investigations whenever he "believes it to be in the public interest that an investigation should be made to ascertain whether a limited services pregnancy center has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in, any practice declared to be unlawful by the Act." No evidence or complaint is required.

People who have never been clients or patients would also be empowered to file lawsuits against PRCs. The bill does not provide for the recovery of attorney fees when a lawsuit is brought against a PRC in bad faith.

Even before charges are pressed, the legislation allows the Attorney General to request a court order to "impound" records while the investigation continues. The Catholic Conference of Illinois has expressed fears that investigations could be endless, forcing PRCs to close.

If found guilty, PRCs could face fines of $50,000.

Click here to read more.

Judge Reinstates Florida Ban on Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

On March 7, US District Judge Robert L Hinkle reinstated Florida's 2016 law prohibiting state tax dollars from going to organizations that perform abortions.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody argued in a motion that because the permanent injunction blocking the pro-life law was based on the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, the injunction should be lifted.

"Now that the case at the center of the [district] court’s reasoning has been overturned," Moody wrote. "We are petitioning the court to vacate the court’s injunction and allow the will of our state’s legislative body and the people who elected them to take effect."

Hinkle agreed with Moody's argument, issuing a decision to end the injunction.

Click here to read more.

Montana Judge Blocks Parental Consent Law, Allows Parental Notification

A Montana Judge issued a ruling permanently blocking Montana's state law requiring minors under the age of 16 to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion. The judge allowed a parental notification law to remain in force pending a court decision.

District Court Judge Christ Abbott wrote in his decision that the Montana state constitution's right to privacy renders the parental consent law unconstitutional and unenforceable.

“Minors can abstain from consuming alcohol or getting a tattoo with little effect on their futures, but the same cannot be said of keeping a pregnancy or having an abortion,” Judge Abbott wrote according to the Daily Montanan. “There are few decisions with higher or longer-lasting stakes in life than whether to become or stay pregnant, and even fewer (if any) with equally profound spiritual, physical, mental, social, and economic considerations. The complexity of the dilemma only reinforces its individuality and therefore its place at the core of personal privacy.”

The parental notification and consent requirements stemmed from a 2012 ballot measure in which 66% of Montana voters approved legislation requiring parental notification. Before legislators passed that bill into law, they changed it to further require parental consent with signatures. Pro-lifers in the state argue that this was necessary because abortion businesses instructed minors to send notification letters to fake addresses.

Click here to read more.

North Carolina Lawsuit Claims FDA Guidance Trumps State Abortion Pill Regulations

Pro-life lawmakers in North Carolina are defending a pro-life law from an abortionist whose lawsuit argues states cannot regulate abortion any more than FDA guidance does.

North Carolina's pro-life law requires a 72-hour waiting period for women receiving the abortion pill, and it requires that it be dispensed in person (rather than through the mail). Under the Biden administration, the FDA ended a regulatory policy that similarly required the abortion pill to be administered in-person.

Dr. Amy Bryant, an abortionist, sued to block the law; arguing that North Carolina's regulations violated the US Constitution's supremacy clause by contradicting the FDA's guidance.

Pro-Abortion North Carolina AG John Stein (D) refused to defend the law in court, saying that he agreed with Bryant's argument. North Carolina law grants legal standing to the speaker of the house and president pro-tempore, however. Last month, both legislators filed a motion to defend the law in court.

The pro-life lawmakers point to Dobbs v. Jackson as evidence that states have broad authority to write and enforce laws regarding abortion.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life OB-GYN Association Banned from Educational OB-GYN Conference

Incoming AAPLOG CEO Dr. Christina Francis

The American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs (AAPLOG) is speaking out after it was banned from an annual educational conference hosted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

ACOG is known to have pro-abortion tendencies, but AAPLOG has been allowed to have an exhibit at the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) and the Association of Professors of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (APGO) for 15 years.

According to AAPLOG CEO-elect Dr. Christina Francis, her organization was not notified that they were banned from the conference until after they arrived in Maryland to attend.

“We found out not from the person who had made the decision, or even anybody from ACOG, but from their third-party vendor,” Francis told LiveAction. “A vendor said he was instructed by ACOG to notify us that our booth was cancelled, and to refund us our money.”

“The conference is meant to be — which is why it was such a big deal — for those who are educating medical students and residents and OB/GYNs,” Francis said. “So they are responsible, largely, for the education of the next generation of OB/GYNs in this country. So it’s a really important conference, just because the things that are presented at this conference, and learned at this conference, then go out to all of these residency programs and medical school rotations across the country.”

She noted, “[ACOG] also filed a brief in support of the defendants in the lawsuit we are a plaintiff on, against the FDA over Mifeprex. I don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but these are the questions we wanted to ask.”

Mifeprex (mifepristone) is the first drug used in the abortion pill regimen. AAPLOG's lawsuit challenges the FDA's approval of the pill in 2000; arguing that the approval process is "deeply flawed" and the drug is unsafe.

Francis went to social media to voice her disappointment and challenge ACOG CEO Maureen Phipps to a debate about "the impact of elective abortion on the health of women."

“I will meet her anytime, any place so that we can present both sides of this issue and allow not only the general public but also the next generation of physicians to decide for themselves what the evidence supports,” Francis said in a video message posted to Twitter on Feb. 27.

ACOG Senior Manager of Media Relations and Communications Rachel Kingery told CNA that the ACOG did not plan to respond to Francis's video on Twitter.

Click here to read more.

Sandra Merritt to Appeal Undercover Journalism Case to US Supreme Court

After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Liberty Counsel's request to hear Sandra Merritt's case in front of the entire court, the legal firm announced plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Sandra Merritt worked alongside David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), to release undercover videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood for illegally harvesting body parts from aborted children for sale to medical research groups. The footage shows abortionists haggling over prices and admitting that they change abortion procedures to obtain intact organs.

A playlist of the videos in question can be found here.

Planned Parenthood sued Merritt, Daleiden, and the CMP for their undercover work, arguing that the journalism was criminal conduct under California privacy law and RICO violations. Liberty Counsel argues that US District Court Judge William Orrick III, who owns property used by Planned Parenthood of Northern California, was biased against the pro-lifers. He refused to recuse himself despite his conflict of interest, Liberty Counsel writes that he severely restricted evidence and gave instructions to the jury on how they should rule.

In the end, the court found the pro-lifers liable for $2 million in damages and almost $14 million in attorney's fees. This is the first time that California's privacy law has been used to punish dissenting journalism.

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Supreme Court is our next destination to undo the injustice of this case. The High Court will have the final say. Every journalist and person who values free speech and a free press should be concerned with the implications of this case. We will fight for the free speech rights of all people.”

Woman Sedated by Chicago Abortion Clinic Hospitalized Because She Couldn't Wake up

Family Planning Associates Medical Group in Chicago Illinois called 911 on Dec. 6, 2022 when one of its sedated patients would not wake up.

The 35-year-old woman was sedated with the drug propofol for a surgical abortion.

911 records, including a dispatch report and recording of the 911 call, were provided to Operation Rescue by the Pro-Life Action League. Operation Rescue is known for documenting medical emergencies caused by abortion businesses.

During the 911 call, a nurse tells the dispatcher that 40 minutes had passed since the abortion, and the patient still would not wake up.

Since 2018, Operation Rescue has documented 17 medical emergencies caused by Family Planning Associates in Chicago. The organization has also documented several malpractice lawsuits filed against the abortion business. Records of these emergencies and lawsuits can be found here.

Click here to read more.

State Attorneys General Warn Retailers Against Mailing Abortion Pills

Nineteen pro-life state attorneys general sent a letter to retail chains warning them of legal consequences if they choose to mail abortion pills.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey led the group in a letter targeted at large retailers including Walmart, Kroger, and Costco.

“We write to advise you of why the FDA’s invitation is unlawful and risky and to urge you to continue rejecting it,” the letter said. “[Y]ou may not yet be aware that federal law expressly prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will ‘be used or applied for producing abortion.’

The letter continues, “Although many people are unfamiliar with this statute because it has not been amended in a few decades, the text could not be clearer: ‘every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion … shall not be conveyed in the mails.’ And anyone who ‘knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating’ is guilty of a federal crime.”

States whose Attorneys General signed include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Click here to read more.

White House Proclamation on Women's History Month Promotes Abortion

The Biden White House released a proclamation on Feb 28 commemorating Women's History month with promises to promote unlimited abortion.

"Last year, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping away a constitutional right from the American people and the ability of millions of women to make decisions about their own bodies, putting their health and lives at risk," the proclamation reads.

It later states,

"My Administration will continue to defend reproductive freedom to ensure that all Americans — regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or income — have the ability to make the choices that are right for themselves and their families.  I have taken executive action to safeguard access to reproductive care, including medication abortion, help ensure women can receive emergency medical care, protect patients’ privacy and access to accurate information about their reproductive rights, and combat discrimination in the health care system.  I continue to call on the Congress to pass a Federal law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade so all women in every State have the right to choose." 

“The president’s proclamation is ironic,” stated Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRL). “By promoting abortion, the Biden-Harris administration is promoting the destruction of many of tomorrow’s female leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, scientists, and educators—just a few of the noted accomplishments praised in the proclamation.”

“Women’s History Month is about the contributions women have made to our nation’s history. Predictably, the Biden administration uses Women’s History Month to promote policies that support unlimited abortion and have caused untold harm to women and their unborn children,” said Tobias. “The tragedy is that mothers facing an unexpected pregnancy are often told, incorrectly, that they cannot achieve success in life unless they have an abortion.”

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Unanimously Rules New York Can't Force Pro-Life Orgs to Hire Pro-Abortion Employees

A three-judge panel from the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday that New York state law can't force pro-life groups to hire or retain pro-abortion employees.

The pro-life Evergreen Association, represented by the Thomas More Society, filed a lawsuit against the State of New York over the state's "Boss Bill of 2019." The case was initially dismissed by a district court, but Evergreen Association appealed.

Judge Steven Menashi wrote in the unanimous opinion, “[I]f the state could require an association that expressly opposes abortion to accept members who engage in the conduct the organization opposes, it would severely burden the organization’s right of expressive association.”

After describing Evergreen Association's argument that the law violates the group's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Menashi wrote, “We hold that Evergreen stated a plausible claim that the labor law unconstitutionally burdens its right to expressive association…. Here, Evergreen has a right to limit its employees to people who share its views and will effectively convey its message. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Evergreen’s expressive association claim.”

Evergreen Association President Christopher Slattery praised the decision and expressed optimism that the ruling would pave the way for a similar decision in a separate lawsuit filed against a New York City law.

Slattery said, "The case has been sent back to the Northern District of New York for further review, and is now clear that the Court of Appeals will not tolerate this bad law as partly unconstitutional, which is a major victory for the pro-life world, and Catholic and Christian schools and organizations, thanks in large part to the Thomas More Society and their great crack attorneys."

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Senators to Again Attempt Ratification of Dead "Equal Rights Amendment"

Pro-abortion legislators in the US Senate have announced plans to vote on a resolution purporting to ratify the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) despite its long-past deadline. The constitutional amendment is interpreted by many to create a right to abortion.

On February 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the ERA in preparation for a vote on S.J. Res. 4. The resolution purports to remove the ERA's ratification deadline.

The ERA included a ratification deadline of June 30, 1982. Between 2017 and 2020, the state legislatures of Illinois, Nevada, and Virginia voted to approve the amendment. In 2021, federal Judge Rudolph Contreras (appointed by President Obama) ruled that the deadline was constitutionally binding, and that it would be "absurd" for the Archivist of the US to certify the ERA. He wrote that the three approvals "came too late to count."

Contreras's decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court heard rulings on September 28, but a decision has yet to be announced.

The National Right to Life Committee also insists that the ERA cannot be revived by a resolution. “The phony ERA resuscitation measure will fail in both Senate and House,” said Douglas Johnson, director of the National Right to Life Committee’s ERA Project. “The measure is a cheap political gimmick that would have no legal effect even if it passed—Congress’s power to change the ERA Resolution ended a half-century ago.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Groups Submit Ballot Measure to Create Constitutional Right to Abortion in Ohio

Two pro-abortion groups in Ohio submitted a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to guarantee a right to abortion.

Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights and Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom sent the proposed amendment to Attorney General Dave Yost on Feb 21. Ohio Right to Life has voiced concerns that the amendment would override all pro-life protections currently on the books in Ohio, including a parental consent law.

Abortion is currently legal in Ohio through 22 weeks of gestation pending a court decision on the constitutionality of a 2019 heartbeat law.

The amendment would ensure “[e]very individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.” It adds that the “State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either an individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individuals’ health…”

Language in the amendment deceptively states that abortion could be “prohibited after fetal viability”  while also stating that viability would be “determined on a case-by-case basis.” It also states that abortionists could still commit abortions after viability if he deems it necessary to protect the mother's health. Broad health exceptions like these are often interpreted to include mental health, effectively giving abortion businesses the justification to commit abortion at any gestational age.

Click here to read more.

Pritzker Joins Alliance of Governors to Strengthen Abortion in US

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D)

Gov. Pritzker has joined an alliance of 20 pro-abortion governors led by California Gov. Gavin Newsom with the aim of strengthening abortion in the US.

Organizers have named the group the "Reproductive Freedom Alliance." They intend for the pro-abortion governors and their staffs to share "best practices" to "affirm abortion rights." This includes sharing pro-abortion legislative language, executive orders, strategies to use federal funding for "reproductive health care," and ways to protect the abortion industry.

"As Illinois remains a beacon for reproductive healthcare in a region increasingly plagued by inhumane restrictions, I'm proud to join my fellow Governors to help fulfill the promise I made when Roe v. Wade was overturned: we will not go backwards," Pritzker said in a press release. "That's why I've committed to expanding funding for reproductive healthcare in my proposed FY24 budget and why I recently signed legislation protecting the rights of providers across Illinois, and why I'll continue to work with partners in Illinois and across the country to protect these important rights."

The alliance includes the governors of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Click here to read more.

Virginia Family Sues Abortion Clinic and Social Services for Pressuring Daughter to Abort

A 15-year-old girl and her parents are suing a Virginia abortion business and a county social services department for pressuring the minor into abortion.

The abortion occurred around Jan 19, 2023. The 15-year-old was 11 weeks pregnant at the time.

According to the lawsuit, the daughter of Charles RemireLee Mullins and Randa Diane Hagy was pressured into an abortion against her wishes. The civil lawsuit lists Bristol Women's Health and the Dickenson County Department of Social Services (DSS) as defendants. The center's director, the physician on staff, the DSS worker, and the DSS director are also named in the lawsuit.

Virginia law requires minors to obtain consent from a parent or guardian before having an abortion unless they receive special permission from a judge. The suit alleges that a bypass was never obtained, and even the daughter refused to cooperate until she was at an abortion appointment scheduled by DSS.

The lawsuit seeks $10 million in compensatory damages and $5.4 million in punitive damages.

Diane Derzis, the owner of Bristol Women's Health, is currently facing a separate lawsuit from the facility's landlords, who claim that they were misled about how the space would be used. Derzis was also the owner of Jackson Women's Health Organization, the facility that sued Mississippi in the Supreme Court Case overturning Roe v. Wade.

Click here to read more.

US Lawmakers Introduce More Abortion Bills

Legislators in the US Senate and House of Representatives continue to introduce abortion legislation in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson. Two new bills being considered by Congress would have drastic effects on abortion in America.

The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Care Act (EACH Act) would end Hyde Amendment protections and allow government-subsidized abortion through government insurance plans such as Medicaid. The EACH Act was introduced by Rep Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).

Legislators advocating for the passage of the EACH Act characterized the Hyde Amendment as racist language designed to oppress low-income and minority groups. The Hyde Amendment is a set of legislative language attached to spending bills preventing tax dollars from paying for abortions.

Click here to read more about the EACH Act.

On the other hand, pro-life senators introduced the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, which would permanently ban federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is at risk. In direct contrast to the EACH Act, this legislation would make Hyde Amendment protections permanent. It would also end taxpayer subsidies for abortion through the Affordable Care Act.

Click here to read more about the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Sen. Duckworth Introduces Bill Creating Right to Assisted Reproductive Technology

US legislators have introduced a bill that would create a right to assisted reproductive technology (ART) including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), and Rep Susan Wild (D-PA) introduced the Right to Build Families Act of 2022 in December. It is on the docket for consideration this year.

“Right now, we’re seeing within the anti-choice community a plot to push for new, more radical policies like the so-called 'personhood bills' that would go even further toward controlling [people’s] bodies,” Duckworth told Parents. These efforts could effectively ban fertility treatments like IVF that many Americans need to start or grow their families.”

Children created during IVF and surrogacy are treated as commodities to be bought and sold. Excess embryos conceived for IVF are often frozen indefinitely or destroyed. Legislation creating a right to ART would enable even more abuse and death than already exists in the industry.

Click here to read more.

Department of Defense to Spend Tax Dollars on Abortion Travel

The US Department of Defense (DoD) publicly released new policies that would use taxpayer dollars to pay the travel expenses for military members and dependents who travel to obtain elective abortions.

Three policies introduced by the DoD on Feb 16 are set to go into effect within 30 days of publication. According to a press release, these policies will change how the DoD handles "command notification of pregnancy, administrative absence for non-covered reproductive health care, and travel allowances for non-covered reproductive health care."

The first policy gives women in service until 20 weeks gestation to inform their commanders that they are pregnant. The policy advises women seeking abortions to consult with a DoD health care provider who can place them on temporary non-deployable status until after the abortion is complete.

The second policy provides 21 days of administrative absence for non-covered reproductive health care (such as elective abortions). A service member can also request 21 days of administrative absence to accompany a dependent to a non-covered abortion.

The third policy provides transportation allowances to pay the transportation expenses of servicemembers and their dependents to access non-covered procedures not offered in the local area. These allowance funds can cover lodging, transportation, and meals.

These are just the most recent attempts by the Biden administration to use the federal rulemaking process to advance the pro-abortion agenda and undermine the laws of pro-life states. Biden has also abused this power to offer illegal abortions at VA facilities.

The DoD press release announcing the policies stated, "Our Service members and their families do not control where they are stationed, and due to the nature of military service, are frequently required to travel or move to meet operational requirements. The efforts taken by the Department today will not only ensure that Service members and their families are afforded time and flexibility to make private health care decisions, but will also ensure Service members are able to access non-covered reproductive health care regardless of where they are stationed."

Click here to read more.

Federal Museums Apologize for Pro-Life Censorship

On Jan 20, 2023, a group of Catholic high school students and their chaperones were kicked out of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum for wearing clothing with pro-life messages. 

The students traveled from Our Lady of the Rosary School in Greenville, South Carolina to Washington D.C. to attend the annual National March for Life. Among other pro-life attire, the group wore matching blue beanies with the words "Rosary PRO-LIFE." Staff at the federally-operated museum told the group that they must remove their hats or leave the premises. When the students refused to do so, staff escorted them out of the museum.

The American Center for Law and Justice, representing the parents of some of the students involved, alleged that staff mocked and swore at the students while claiming that the museum was a "neutral zone" where political or religious messages were prohibited.

In a similar dispute, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by four March for Life participants. These advocates were told to remove or cover clothing with pro-life messages while visiting the National Archives Museum.

On Feb 14, the NARA filed a proposed consent agreement to settle the lawsuit by giving the pro-life advocates private tours and apologizing to them in person.

Both institutions have issued public apologies and admitted to violating the pro-lifers' first amendment rights.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Congress Members Introduce Resolution to End Abortions at VA Facilities

Pro-life legislators have introduced a resolution that aims to end President Biden's policy of offering taxpayer-funded abortions at Veterans Affairs medical facilities.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) introduced the joint resolution.

“Using our VA medical facilities to provide publicly-funded abortions is an unconstitutional abuse of the system, and it will not be tolerated,” Tuberville told Fox News Digital. “No taxpayer should be forced to pay for abortion services that disregard the will of millions of Americans in states with legal protections for life, rightfully upheld by the Supreme Court last year. The interim final rule highlights this administration’s willingness to ignore the law and exploit limited federal resources to serve their extreme abortion agenda.”

Over 60 members of Congress signed the resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. The law gives Congress the power to review and block rules issued by federal agencies.

"The Biden Administration continues to advance their radical abortion on demand agenda, this time through the Department of Veterans Affairs," Cloud told Fox News Digital. "Directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to perform abortions is a clear abuse of the law and it forces taxpayers to fund abortions, something the majority of Americans oppose. I will always be a voice for the unborn and oppose taxpayer funded abortions."

Click here to read more.