Planned Parenthood Admits CMP Undercover Videos are True in Supreme Court Filing

In a filing before the Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood admitted that Planned Parenthood employees negotiated the harvesting and sale of aborted fetal body parts.

The pro-life Center for Medical Progress (CMP) was sued by Planned Parenthood in 2015 after it released undercover footage showing various Planned Parenthood executives discussing the harvesting and sale of body parts harvested from aborted children.

Lower courts did not apply any First Amendment protections to the case, awarding nearly $16 million to Planned Parenthood after CMP exposed its criminal actions. CMP appealed this case to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to remedy this.

Planned Parenthood's August 22 filing admits that Planned Parenthood executives "spoke the words recorded in the videos." The filing argues that CMP's undercover methods justify the lower court rulings; regardless of whether the videos are protected by the First Amendment.

This is the first time that Planned Parenthood has admitted the authenticity of CMP's work before the Supreme Court.

Colorado to Discipline Doctors who Offer APR

On August 17, the Colorado State Medical Board ruled that doctors will be investigated and disciplined if they provide abortion pill reversal (APR) to pregnant mothers who regret taking the first drug in the abortion pill regimen.

The board seemed to change its stance from a week ago; when it said it would evaluate the use of abortion pill reversal on a case-by-case basis.

“Although the board will not treat medication abortion reversal as a per se act of unprofessional misconduct, the board does not consider administering, dispensing or delivering progesterone with the intent to interfere with, reverse, or halt a medication abortion through the use of mifepristone to meet generally accepted standards of medical practice,” its new rule states.

“Licensees are expected to practice evidence-based medicine, and any licensee who provides unscientific treatments that fall below the generally accepted standard of care may be subjected to discipline.”

The rule was prompted by a new pro-abortion Colorado law that punishes pro-life physicians. The law required the state medical board to determine whether APR is a "generally accepted standard of practice." If not, the law tells the board to find doctors who prescribe APR guilty of "unprofessional conduct."

APR works by counteracting the effects of the first pill in the abortion pill regimen, mifepristone. Mifepristone kills an unborn child by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone. Progesterone facilitates the flow of oxygen and nutrients from a mother to her unborn child. Without progesterone, the unborn child dies of starvation and asphyxiation.

APR involves the prescription of supplementary progesterone. This practice has been used to prevent miscarriage in difficult pregnancies, and it can also prevent an unborn child's death if taken soon enough after mifepristone.

Click here to read more.

Indiana Pro-Life Law Takes Effect as State Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for Rehearing

On August 21, an Indiana law protecting the unborn at all stages of development came into effect. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected the ACLU's request to rehear its case challenging Indiana Senate Bill 1. This request only served to artificially extend an injunction preventing Indiana from enforcing the law, which was signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb in August 2022.

The law contains exceptions only for rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, or when the child is diagnosed with a fatal anomaly.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in July that the law does not violate the Indiana Constitution. Justice Derek R Molter wrote in the majority opinion that the state constitution, “protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but the General Assembly otherwise retains broad legislative discretion for determining whether and the extent to which to prohibit abortions.”

The ACLU responded with a petition arguing that the new law's definition of a "serious health risk" would restrict abortion more than the court's decision would allow. The ACLU requested that the Supreme Court keep the law on hold while it pursues a narrower injunction in a trial court.

This request was submitted just as the law was about to take effect on August 1, 2023. Since the Indiana Supreme Court was required to respond before the law could take effect, the ACLU's last-minute action served to artificially extend the injunction barring the law's enforcement.

“My office promised to defend Indiana’s pro-life law, and we have done that every step of the way,” said pro-life Attorney General Todd Rokita. “Today, the Indiana Supreme Court certified its opinion rejecting a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s pro-life law, which protects the lives of innocent, unborn babies. This is great news for Hoosier life and liberty. We defeated the pro-death advocates who try to interject their views in a state that clearly voted for life

Click here to read more.

Peoria Planned Parenthood Arsonist Sentenced

Tyler W. Massengill

On August 15, Tyler W. Massengill, a 33-year-old career criminal, was sentenced for his Jan. 15 arson attack on the Planned Parenthood Peoria Health Center.

The sentence carries 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and $1.45 million in restitution. On Feb. 16, Massengill pleaded guilty to malicious use of fire and an explosive to damage, and attempt to damage, the Peoria Health Center. 

Massengill has a criminal record dating back 20 years, including 26 arrests in Peoria County. Despite this, federal officials suggested his conduct represents a pattern of violent extremism posed by pro-life activists. the following statements come from a US Department of Justice press release.

“Massengill’s actions represent the very real threat posed by extremists in our communities,” said Special Agent in Charge David Nanz of the FBI Springfield Field Office. “Protecting the American people from such extremists remains a top priority for the FBI and our team remains laser-focused on identifying, investigating and disrupting individuals who cross the line from expressing protected speech to violating federal law.”

“This defendant’s violent conduct severely damaged the Peoria Health Center and obstructed patients’ access to reproductive health services,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will continue to aggressively prosecute such unlawful, destructive acts, and to protect the clinics that provide reproductive health services, as well as their patients and staff.”

When he pleaded guilty to charges, Massengill stated that his actions were "triggered" by anger at an ex-girlfriend's abortion. His impulsive, violent actions were those of a career criminal, not a pro-life activist. The DOJ's investigation did not find any connection with a pro-life group, nor a personal pattern of pro-life activism. The DOJ's statement takes advantage of the situation to further a false narrative that pro-life activists are violent extremists.

Pro-life groups attempt to save innocent children from violence and assist vulnerable mothers through non-violent means. Onlookers who see pro-lifers at work will see crisis pregnancy centers and sidewalk counselors, not violence and hatred.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Rules Washington DC Violated Pro-Life Groups' Freedom of Speech

2 pro-life activists chalking a pro-life message on a
Washington DC sidewalk in 2020.

On August 15, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the First Amendment rights of pro-lifers who were arrested for writing a pro-life message in chalk on a public sidewalk in Washington DC.

The case stems from an incident in 2020 when pro-lifers with the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America gathered to write pro-life messages in chalk and temporary paint on a public road and sidewalk in front of a Planned Parenthood facility. This occurred shortly after BLM protestors were allowed to write "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" in permanent paint on city streets.

Washington DC didn't arrest any BLM protestors in accordance with its public defacement ordinance, but it did arrest two pro-life activists for chalking on the sidewalk. Law enforcement also prevented these groups from using the temporary paint.

A Students for Life staff member told Live Action at the time that the groups obtained verbal permission from the police department to use temporary paint, but police who arrived at the event would not allow it.

“The government may not enforce the laws in a manner that picks winners and losers in public debates,” the D.C. Circuit wrote in its opinion reversing the decision of a lower court in The Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia. “It would undermine the First Amendment’s protections for free speech if the government could enact a content-neutral law and then discriminate against disfavored viewpoints under the cover of prosecutorial discretion.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, who argued the case on behalf of the pro-life organizations, praised the court's 3-0 decision.

“Washington officials can’t censor messages they disagree with. The right to free speech is for everyone, and we’re pleased the D.C. Circuit agreed that the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom to peacefully share their views the same as anyone else. Every American deserves for their voice to be heard as they engage in important cultural and political issues of the day.”

 Click here to read more.

5th Circuit Restores Abortion Pill Safety Rules Pending Supreme Court Review

On August 16, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against the FDA on several policies deregulating the abortion pill mifepristone. The ruling would revert mifepristone back to the regulatory status it held in 2016, though it is on hold pending Supreme Court review.

The panel of Judges Jennifer Elrod, James Ho, and Cory Wilson found that the FDA failed to follow the legally-required process when loosening mifepristone regulations in 2016 and 2021. These changes (among other things) legalized the prescription of mifepristone later in pregnancy, allowed mifepristone to be sent to customers via mail, removed required office visits before obtaining a prescription, and allowed medical professionals other than doctors to prescribe it.

Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal firm representing a coalition of pro-life medical professionals in its challenge against the FDA, praised the panel's decision.

“The 5th Circuit rightly required the FDA to do its job and restore crucial safeguards for women and girls, including ending illegal mail-order abortions,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice.

“The FDA will finally be made to account for the damage it has caused to the health of countless women and girls and the rule of law by unlawfully removing every meaningful safeguard from the chemical abortion drug regimen. The FDA’s unprecedented and unlawful actions did not reflect scientific judgment but rather revealed politically driven decisions to push a dangerous drug regimen without regard to women’s health or the rule of law.”

The court criticized the FDA for ending a requirement that abortion businesses report non-fatal adverse events and then using the resulting lack of data to support decisions loosening safety regulations.

This decision left in place the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone and its 2019 authorization of a generic version.

“The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the FDA’s actions loosening the regulations involving Mifeprex were unlawful,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Our hope is that today’s decision will be affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Today’s ruling, though not in effect because of the prior stay by the Supreme Court, would also reinstate long-standing safety protocols for women which were removed during COVID and made permanent because of pro-abortion pressure on the FDA,” said Tobias.

This case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration stems from a coalition of pro-life doctors who argued that the FDA unlawfully fast-tracked the approval of mifepristone in 2000 through a process intended for the treatment of life-threatening illnesses. These physicians' complaints were stonewalled by the FDA for over 20 years before reaching federal court.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas was receptive to this argument, and he issued a national injunction overriding the FDA's approval of mifepristone. His injunction was put on hold by higher courts.

Click here to read more.

Judge Sanctions Southwest Airlines for Ignoring Court Order in Religious Liberty Case

Photo credit: Aero Icarus / Flickr

US District Judge Brantley Starr in Texas issued sanctions against Southwest Airlines and ordered its attorneys to take religious freedom training from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The order comes after the airline lost a religious freedom lawsuit for firing flight attendant Charlene Carter, an employee who expressed disagreement with her union's pro-abortion stance. Carter was awarded $5 million, and she was reinstated to her position.

The airline was further ordered by the court to inform its workers that the company “may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” In its August 7 ruling, the court said Southwest “didn’t come close to complying with the court’s order.”

Southwest's "Recent Court Decision" memo issued to employees after the lawsuit downplayed the decision and maintained that it "does not" discriminate against employees' religious beliefs. According to Carter's attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation, this wording implied that Southwest will determine what religious speech is acceptable.

Starr ordered Southwest to provide a statement verbatim to its flight attendants to ensure they understand how religious speech is protected. The order also requires Southwest to fly an ADF attorney to Dallas to provide eight hours of religious freedom training to Southwest attorneys Kerrie Forbes, Kevin Minchey, and Chris Maberry. Southwest will be responsible for the ADF representative's expenses. This training must be completed by August 28.

Southwest told CNA that it planned “to appeal the recent court order and are in the process of appealing the underlying judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Click here to read more.

Judge Upholds Nebraska's 12-Week Abortion Law

On August 11, a district court judge in Nebraska upheld the state's law protecting the unborn from abortion at 12 weeks gestation and beyond. The law contains exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the mother's life.

After Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) signed LB 574 into law in May 22, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU challenged the law on grounds that it violates the Nebraska Constitution's "single-subject" rule. The law deals simultaneously with "gender-altering surgery" for minors and protections for the unborn.

Lancaster County District Court Judge Lori Maret ruled that the law is constitutional because its content was entirely about healthcare.

“I am grateful for the court’s thorough decision,” said Gov. Jim Pillen. ”I was proud to sign into law a measure that protects kids and defends the unborn, and I am pleased that it has been upheld. Thank you to the Attorney General and his litigation team for defending this important law.”

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said, “We are thankful for the court’s thoughtful analysis and recognition of the Legislature’s prerogatives and processes. As a result of today’s order, LB 574 remains law in Nebraska.”

The ACLU has already announced its intent to appeal Maret's ruling. In the meantime, Nebraska can enforce its law to protect the unborn.

Click here to read more.

35-Year-Old Hospitalized After Hemorrhage at Hope Clinic in Granite City

On July 19, Hope Clinic for Women (HCW) in Granite City, Illinois injured yet another woman during an abortion. The 35-year-old patient was transferred to Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis due to hemorrhaging after a second-trimester dilation and evacuation abortion.

Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization that documents medical emergencies caused by abortion businesses, obtained a recording of the 911 call via FOIA request. Abortionist Erin King initiated the call.

King mentioned that HCW had an agreement with the "family planning team" at Barnes to accept the transfer. There is a hospital immediately across the street from HCW, but the abortion business usually opts to transfer patients to the St. Louis hospital. This is likely because Barnes is a Level One Trauma Center more capable of handling the severe injuries caused by HCW.

King also took care to avoid using the medical term "hemorrhage" to describe the heavy bleeding experienced by the patient. This continued even after the 911 dispatcher used the term to clarify the injury.

This is the 14th medical emergency Operation Rescue documented at HCW since March of 2022, when Julie Burkhart became HCW's primary owner. Operation Rescue has already begun investigating another hospitalization that occurred two weeks later.

Operation Rescue wrote that it has documented hospitalizations at HCW more frequently than any other abortion business in the country. Operation Rescue investigates incidents after pro-life sidewalk counselors witness ambulances arrive for emergency transport. The number of incidents that occur when sidewalk counselors aren't present is unknown.

“The number of life-threatening botched abortions taking place at this hopeless facility puts a dark stain on the state of Illinois and the city of Granite City,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “While babies are being violently killed and the lives of their mothers constantly endangered, the state’s lawmakers and the governor are busy enacting a law to prevent pregnancy resource centers from providing truly hopeful alternatives to women in crisis pregnancy situations.”

Click here to read more.

Illinois to Spend Millions in Support of Abortion

Gov. JB Pritzker (D)

On July 31, Illinois announced approximately $23 million in taxpayer funding to support pro-abortion initiatives. These include two abortion hotlines and a "family-planning" program for Medicaid.

$10 million in total from the Illinois Department of Public Health will fund the creation of the "Reproductive Health Public Navigation Hotline." This hotline will direct women to abortion businesses in Illinois. In a press release, the administration emphasized the hotline was deemed necessary to facilitate abortions for out-of-state mothers.

Another $5 million will be directed to the Complex Abortion Regional Line for Access (CARLA). This hotline will be run by the Illinois Department of Health and Family Services, the Illinois Department of Public Health, the University of Illinois at Chicago, Rush University System for Health, and the Chicago Abortion Fund. According to the press release, this hotline is intended for "patients who present for abortions at clinics who need a higher level of care than can be provided at the clinics." The hotline will help patients arrange appointments within hospital systems.

It should be noted that abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother. If a mother's life is in danger, emergency premature delivery is a fast and effective alternative to end pregnancy without intentionally killing an unborn child.

Illinois also announced a new "family-planning" program for Medicaid that will cover abortion. Further, it will offer coverage for "family planning services" to people who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid because they exceed Medicaid's income threshold. Illinois's Medicaid funding now clearly prioritizes "family planning services" over most healthcare.

The new Illinois Reproductive Health Facilities Capital Grant Program directs $5 million toward abortion businesses. These grants will fund building improvements, repairs, new construction, security upgrades, and other equipment (including the purchase of vehicles for "mobile care units").

NPR Illinois also reported that the state's spending plan includes $8 million for “reproductive health care providers and a specialty consultation program for at-risk patients.”

Finally, Illinois announced that it will cover the travel expenses and lodging of state employees and dependents who live in pro-life states.

In a press conference touting the new pro-abortion initiatives, Gov. J.B. Pritzker hinted that his administration could announce even more in the future.

Ohio Issue 1 Defeated

A ballot proposal that would have increased the majority required to amend the Ohio state constitution failed during the state's August 8 special election. Currently, Ohio's constitution can be amended by a simple majority at the ballot box. The proposal would have increased the required majority to 60%

Unofficial results reported by the Ohio Secretary of State's office indicate 57% percent of voters opposed the proposal.

Pro-life Ohioans pushed for the ballot measure in response to a separate proposal on the November 7 ballot. The November 7 proposal would enshrine a "right to carry out one's own reproductive decisions" into the state's constitution. If successful, this would prohibit the state from enforcing laws to protect unborn children from abortion at any gestational age.

Parental rights groups further argue that the proposal would prevent parents from being involved in their children's decisions to have abortions or undergo transgender surgeries.

Notably, political groups in support of the August 8 proposal were outspent nearly 3 to 1. Most of this fundraising in opposition to Proposal 1 came from interest groups outside the state of Ohio. This likely drove higher pro-abortion turnout to the special election

President Joe Biden hailed the results in a statement: “This measure was a blatant attempt to weaken voters’ voices and further erode the freedom of women to make their own health care decisions. Ohioans spoke loud and clear, and tonight democracy won.”

Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens (R) called on pro-lifers to focus on the upcoming abortion-rights proposal. “It is now time to turn our attention to November. As a 100% pro-life conservative, we must defeat Issue 1 on November 7 to stop abortion from being a part of our state’s constitution.”

Click here to read more.

Illinois Attorney General Asks Court to Block Idaho Abortion Trafficking Law

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D)

On July 31, alongside other pro-abortion state attorneys general, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D) filed an amicus brief asking a federal district court to block Idaho's new abortion trafficking law.

Idaho's HB 242 prohibits abortion on a minor without notifying the minor's parents or guardians. Further, it prohibits adults from transporting a pregnant minor on Idaho's roads for the purpose of concealing an abortion from the minor's parents or guardians. The law protects girls from predators who would take girls to pro-abortion states to pay for abortions and hide their crimes.

The law does not prohibit interstate travel for abortion. It only prohibits 3rd parties from transporting minors within the boundaries of Idaho if the intent is to conceal abortion from the minor's parents or guardians. This detail has been largely misrepresented by the media and pro-abortion activists, including pro-abortion Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

“We, unfortunately, continue to see increased efforts in other states to restrict access to or criminalize abortion. It’s not enough for these anti-abortion states to ban access within their own borders. Idaho’s law is an unconstitutional attempt to chill access to abortion in safe haven states, like Illinois,” Raoul said in a press release. “Illinois proudly protects reproductive health care as a fundamental right. I will continue to challenge any actions that attempt to curtail access to lawful health care in Illinois and across the country.”

Raoul and other pro-abortion Attorneys General are attempting to protect abortion businesses in pro-abortion states; even at the expense of young victims of sexual violence.

Click here to read more.

Ohioans Vote on Constitutional Amendment During Special Election

Voters in Ohio have the opportunity to vote on a state constitutional amendment that could have lasting pro-life consequences during a special election this week.

If successful, State Issue 1 on the August 8th special election ballot would increase the threshold required to amend the Constitution of Ohio. Currently, the Constitution of Ohio can be amended if a ballot measure passes by a simple majority of votes. State Issue 1 would increase the required threshold to 60%.

State Issue 1 was introduced in response to a ballot initiative that would create a right to abortion in Ohio. That initiative, pushed by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, creates 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." If the pro-abortion amendment passes, it would prohibit the state from protecting the unborn through legislation such as Ohio's heartbeat law.

The pro-abortion amendment will be on this year's November ballot. If State Issue 1 passes during this week's special election, it could help ensure that the unborn continue to enjoy legal protection in Ohio.

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Issues Injunction Blocking Illinois SB1909

Thomas More Society Executive Vice President
and Head of Litigation Peter Breen

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of SB1909, a law threatening legal action against pro-life speech from pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) accused of "deception" or "omission of any material fact" when providing alternatives for abortion.

District Judge Iain Johnston issued the injunction late on August 3 after hearing arguments from the Thomas More Society, the law firm representing a coalition of PRCs and pro-life groups challenging SB1909. Johnston was appointed by former President Trump. 

“There’s no doubt who the Attorney General wants to win or lose in the marketplace of ideas, but the government doesn’t get to decide that,” Johnston said. “The people do.”

Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation for the Thomas More Society and former Illinois State Representative, celebrated the injunction in a press release. “Free Speech won today in the Land of Lincoln—pro-life advocates across Illinois can breathe a sigh of relief they won’t be pursued for ‘misinformation’ by Attorney General Kwame Raoul.”

“Across the nation, pregnancy help ministries are being discriminated against by laws that target their life-affirming work,” Breen continued. “The injunction granted today sends a strong, clear message to the country that the First Amendment protects pro-life speech.”

The new law, signed by Gov. JB Pritzker last week, threatens legal action against pro-life pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) accused of providing misinformation, including "the omission of any material fact." This broad language causes some pro-life activists to fear it may force PRCs to refer women for abortions.

If SB19009 was enforced, the state could levy fines of $50,000 against PRCs if they are found guilty.

In a statement obtained by the Washington Post, Gov. Pritzker said he is confident the pro-abortion law will eventually be upheld.

“I’m disappointed that the far-right is interfering with the ability for women to access safe medical care without deception or lies,” he said. “This law is constitutional and I am confident that the law will ultimately be found constitutional and we’ll continue to work alongside Attorney General Raoul to ensure Illinois patients are protected from misinformation.”

In a similar case that went to the US Supreme Court in 2018, the Court struck down a California law forcing PRCs to refer women for abortions.

Click here to read more.

University of Chicago Finds Increase in Support for Violence to Restore Roe

A poll conducted in June by the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Threats found a significant increase in support for violent action to restore a federal right to abortion.

The University of Chicago released its report last month after conducting a survey from June 22-26. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with a variety of statements. Many of these statements had to do with former president Donald Trump and faith in democracy. One, however, dealt with violent support of abortion rights.

12% of respondents agreed with the statement “The use of force is justified to restore the federal right to abortion.” Just six months earlier, only 8% agreed with the same statement.

Among Democrats specifically, support for violence to restore a right to abortion increased from 8% to 16% in the same time period. Support from independents rose from 11% to 14%. Republican support remained at 6% in both surveys.

Violent support of abortion has resulted in attacks against churches, pro-life sidewalk counselors, and pro-life pregnancy centers since the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Just last month, a pro-life sidewalk counselor was brutally beaten outside a Planned Parenthood facility in Washington DC. Several days later, a pro-life pregnancy center in Las Vegas, Nevada was vandalized by the organization known as "Jane's Revenge."

The report is titled “Dangers to Democracy: Tracking Deep Distrust of Democratic Institutions, Conspiracy Beliefs, and Support for Political Violence Among Americans.”

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Dismisses Satanic Temple Lawsuit Challenging Texas Pro-Life Laws

A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas dismissed a lawsuit by The Satanic Temple (TST) challenging the state's pro-life laws on religious grounds.

TST's lawsuit on behalf of "Ann Doe" claimed that Texas law unconstitutionally prohibited Doe from performing "abortion rituals." The lawsuit described abortion as a "sacrament."

“The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a sacrament which surrounds and includes the abortive act. It is designed to combat feelings of guilt, doubt, and shame and to empower the member to assert or reassert power and control over their own mind and body,” TST wrote in its 2021 lawsuit.

Judge Charles Eskridge dismissed the lawsuit, writing that its claims were "spare and unusually cryptic." He further wrote in his ruling that TST's lawsuit failed to explain its "religious statutes" and "ritual" adequately.

Click here to read more.

NIFLA Challenges Vermont Anti-PRC Law

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) filed a lawsuit challenging a Vermont law targeting pro-life pregnancy centers.

NIFLA is the same coalition of pregnancy centers that is represented by the Thomas More Society in a challenge against Illinois's SB1909, a law penalizing pregnancy centers that offer abortion alternatives to vulnerable pregnant women.

The Vermont law censors pro-life pregnancy centers' ability to advertise and even precludes them from offering non-medical services unless provided by a licensed medical professional.

Vermont's law would also penalize any medical professional who offers abortion pill reversal (APR) as a service. Under the law, providing APR would constitute "unprofessional conduct" punishable by "denial of license or other disciplinary action."

During APR, a mother who regrets taking the first drug in the abortion pill regimen (mifepristone) can attempt to save her child's life by taking the pregnancy hormone progesterone. Mifepristone kills an unborn child by blocking progesterone, which helps facilitate the flow of oxygen and nutrients to the child. Taking progesterone helps restore this flow, potentially saving the child's life. Progesterone has historically been used in medical settings to help prevent miscarriage during difficult pregnancies.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing NIFLA in its case against Vermont's law.

“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should be empowered with life-affirming options, emotional support, and practical resources,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne. “Vermont’s law, however, does the opposite—it impedes women’s ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives and suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”

Click here to read more.

Indiana Law Protecting Children at all Gestational Ages Delayed Again

UPDATE

On July 31, the ACLU filed a motion to rehear this case at a trial court. The ACLU's argues that the pro-life law's definition of a serious health risk is more restrictive than what the Supreme Court suggested the state Constitution might allow.

The law cannot take effect until after the Supreme Court responds to the ACLU's petition. It seems that they waited until the last possible moment in an attempt to artificially extend the injunction.

Click here to read more about the ACLU's motion and the extended injunction.

---Original Post Below---

On August 1, Indiana's law protecting unborn children is set to take effect. The law protects children at all gestational ages, but it contains exceptions for rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, or when the unborn child is diagnosed with a fatal medical condition.

Last year, pro-abortion groups filed a lawsuit to prevent the law from taking effect. In September 2022, County Judge Kelsey B Hanlon imposed a temporary injunction blocking Indiana from enforcing the pro-life law. Indiana appealed Hanlon's decision to the state Supreme Court. On June 30, 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the law does not violate the Indiana Constitution's privacy protections. The court vacated the injunction, allowing the law to go into effect on August 1.

A separate challenge from women arguing they have a religious right to abortion through Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act continues.

Click here to read more.

Illegal VA Abortion Policy Now Granting Religious Exemptions

The US Department of Veterans Affairs, following a lawsuit from a Texas nurse, is now granting religious exemptions for employees who oppose abortion.

In response to the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade last year, the Biden administration made it a priority for the executive branch to support and promote abortion. To further this goal, Biden introduced a new policy last year to offer taxpayer-funded abortions to veterans and their dependents through the Department of Veterans Affairs. This policy was introduced in September of 2022, and it became effective after one month.

Stephanie Carter, a pro-life Texas nurse employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, sought a religious exemption from participating in abortion. When she was unable to obtain one, she filed a lawsuit in December. Carter is represented by First Liberty Attorney Holly Randall. Randall told the Washington Times that Carter "was told repeatedly by her supervisor  that there was no process or more information would be made available at some vague point in the future."

Danielle Runyan, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, said, "Stephanie Carter is living proudly by her faith and should not be forced to choose between her faith and her career. Because of her courage, every VA employee in the nation can now seek a religious accommodation from participating in a procedure they find unconscionable."

Click here to read more.

Gov. Pritzker Signs SB1909 to Punish Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

Gov. JB Pritzker (D)

On July 27, pro-abortion Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed SB1909. This legislation empowers the Illinois Attorney General to take legal action against pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs).

PRCs offer services to vulnerable mothers and families to help them choose life for their children. These services can include prenatal care, pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, STD testing, financial assistance, career assistance, parental counseling, and maternity and baby items. Often, PRCs provide these services for free with the help of donations from pro-life advocates and volunteers.

Titled the “Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act,” SB1909 prohibits PRCs from "the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact" when providing pro-life alternatives to abortion. The law only applies to "limited services pregnancy centers," which are defined as pregnancy centers that don't offer abortion, contraception, or referrals for those services.

These terms, from "deception" to "omission of any material fact" are not defined by the law. When questioned about the legal definition of "deceptive practices" during a committee hearing, the Deputy Attorney General for Policy said that complaints would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This leaves the law open to broad interpretation. Some argue it could force PRCs to provide referrals for abortion.

A coalition of PRCs quickly filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul to halt SB1909's enforcement. This coalition is represented by the Thomas Moore Society.

“This law is a blatant attempt to chill and silence pro-life speech under the guise of ‘consumer protection,’” explained Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, and a former Illinois State Legislator. “Pregnancy help ministries provide real options and assistance to women and families in need, but instead of the praise they deserve, pro-abortion politicians are targeting these ministries with $50,000 fines and injunctions solely because of their pro-life viewpoint.”

Click here to read more.