Tennessee AG Sues Biden Admin for Diverting Title X Funds to Planned Parenthood

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R)

Last month, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for diverting Tennessee Title X funds to Planned Parenthood.

The Biden administration, through the HHS, announced earlier this year that it would no longer provide federal funding to Tennessee's health departments through Title X. This is because the Biden administration now requires Title X fund recipients to refer women for abortion, something that Tennessee does not require.

Under Tennessee's Human Life Protection Act, unborn children are largely protected from abortion, so Biden is asking pregnancy resource centers to refer women for a service that is illegal in the state.

According to the Associated Press, Tennessee collected about $7.1 million annually in recent years to help fund family planning organizations in the state. Now, most of those dollars are being sent directly to Planned Parenthood.

By diverting Title X taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, the Biden administration is helping to fund the abortion business's legal fight against the Human Life Protection Act.

“We are suing to stop the federal government from playing politics with the health of Tennessee women,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “Our lawsuit is necessary to ensure that Tennessee can continue its 50-year track record of successfully providing these public health services to its neediest populations.”

Click here to read more.

Ohio Voters Approve Right to Abortion in State Constitution

On November 7, Ohioans voted 57%-43% to create a right to abortion in the state constitution.

The amendment creates a right to abortion at any point in pregnancy up until the moment of birth as long as the abortionist deems it necessary for the mother's "health." "Health" is not defined by the amendment's language, allowing abortionists and courts to interpret it broadly.

Courts interpret similar language in other laws to include mental health.

The amendment prevents Ohio from enforcing any law that would interfere with an individual's right to "carry out one's own reproductive decisions." This language will likely also prevent Ohio from enforcing waiting periods or parental notification laws. It could prevent the state from enforcing laws that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

NBC News reported that spending in favor of the amendment since August 9 was $18.3 million compared to $7 million from pro-life groups. Much of this spending came from large out-of-state organizations like Planned Parenthood. These ads pounded voters with misinformation such as the idea that pro-life laws kill mothers and imprison them for experiencing miscarriage.

“Sadly, the ones who will suffer for tonight’s vote will be women and their unborn babies,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “As pro-abortion groups move in on Ohio and push to overturn protective laws, the people of Ohio will likely be shocked at the impact their decision will have.”

In other key votes, pro-life candidates lost Virginia's General Assembly and Kentucky's Governor race. 

On the other hand, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (who argued the Dobbs v. Jackson case before the Supreme Court) defeated her opponent by a margin of approximately 2 to 1.

Click here to read more.

Biden Admin Pays Guttmacher Institute $594K to Study "Impact" of Pro-life Laws

On September 5, the Biden administration's National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded $594,163 to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute to conduct a study on the “impact of new state restrictions on abortion incidence and safety.”

The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as the research arm of Planned Parenthood. It has changed its name over the years, but it still maintains its pro-abortion roots. The organization's current name comes from former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher.

The NIH project description states that it will last until August 2024, after which the Guttmacher Institute will deliver “baseline data to capture the impact of state abortion restrictions expected over the coming months on the health of pregnant people as well as the need for high-quality estimates of abortion incidence both within and outside of the formal health care system.” 

Biden's administration also says the study will collect "data on facility-based and self-managed abortions to estimate the national incidence of abortion and abortion-related health outcomes."

Given the bent perspectives of both the Biden administration and the Guttmacher Institute, any conclusions to come from this study will surely support their pro-abortion beliefs. This study will use taxpayer dollars to further the goals of pro-abortion activists.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Attorneys General Publish Open Letter Attacking PRCs

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D)

Led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a group of 16 pro-abortion state attorneys general published an open letter claiming that pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) are deceptive and harmful to women.

Bonta was joined by the attorneys general from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Bonta wrote in the eight-page letter that PRCs harm women by “[delaying] pregnant people from accessing critical reproductive healthcare—by dissuading pregnant people from seeking abortion care and by frequently holding themselves out as full spectrum healthcare providers when most of them are anything but.”

The attorneys general went on to express frustration that pregnancy resource centers don't refer women to abortion clinics and offer abortion pill reversal treatment. Bonta's office has gone as far as to file a lawsuit against Heartbeat International for offering abortion pill reversal services.

They also supported Yelp in its ongoing legal battle against Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. The online review platform put disclaimers on listings for PRCs suggesting that they did not staff licensed medical professionals, regardless of whether the PRC had a medical professional on staff.

Kelsey Pritchard, director of State Public Affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told Fox News, "Pregnancy centers exist to help women in need by providing free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, medical exams, counseling, parenting classes, financial classes; items such as food, diapers, and clothing; and financial assistance for housing and utilities."

"The twisted attempts to hinder pregnancy resource centers’ ability to serve women prove that Democrats are not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion,” Pritchard continued. “Today’s Democrats view success as more abortions and with the help of Yelp and Big Tech, they are concealing the options that exist for women.”

Click here to read more.

National Right to Life Analyses Pro-Abortion "We Count" Report

National Right to Life Director of Education & Research Randall K. O'Bannon released an analysis of the pro-abortion "We Count" report released by the Society for Family Planning (SFP) last month.

The report, which was featured in the New York Times, suggested that pro-life state laws were not decreasing the number of abortions. The data presented in the "We Count" study suggested that any decreases in abortion in states with pro-life laws were offset by increases in pro-abortion states. With this data, SFP argued that pro-life laws don't work. Women would just travel out of state to have abortions.

O'Bannon's analysis pointed out several issues with the study.

1. States without laws protecting the unborn often make an effort to promote abortion. They spend time and money advertising to women in pro-abortion states hoping that they will become "abortion tourists."

2. Early data suggests that births increase when states enforce laws protecting unborn children.

3. Pro-abortion advocacy groups created abortion travel funds in response to the Dobbs. v. Jackson decision. These funds allow pro-abortion organizations to act as travel agents for women traveling out of state for abortions. These organizations schedule abortions with abortion businesses in other states and pay the travel costs.

The money in these funds was largely fundraised from pro-abortion advocates immediately after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, and it might not be a sustainable model in the long term.

4. SFP is a pro-abortion organization, not a neutral observer. It has an incentive to present the abortion industry in a favorable light to investors. More abortions mean more "sales." When SFP estimated the number of abortions from clinics that did not report (something it openly admitted to doing), it may have inflated those numbers to its own benefit.

Click here to read the full analysis.

36 Nations Recommit to Pro-Life Geneva Consensus Declaration

A coalition of 36 nations gathered in Washington DC last week to commit to the pro-life Geneva Consensus Declaration.

This year marks the third anniversary of the Geneva Consensus Declaration, in which member nations voiced their commitment to their sovereign right to make pro-life policies aligning with their cultural values without foreign interference. The Declaration states that there is no internationally recognized right to abortion.

The United States was a member of this pro-life coalition when the declaration was first created in 2020, but the Biden administration withdrew soon after it took office in 2021.

“The Geneva Consensus Declaration recognized the critical role of the family as the building block of society, honored the basic human rights of all women and reaffirmed the inherent right to life for all people,” Republican U.S. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said at the gathering.

“President Biden remains the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history,” Lankford continued. “He removed the United States from the Declaration, which was supported by more than a billion people worldwide and is instead actively promoting abortion here and abroad. Now, more than ever, we should stand in unity and make it known that all lives are precious — whether born or unborn — and should be honored and protected. I am committed to defending the family, standing for life and fighting for the health needs of women around the world.”

Governments that sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration commit to “enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant” and emphasize that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.”

Click here to read more.

Kansas Judge Blocks Waiting Period, APR Notification Laws

On October 30, District Judge Kishnan Christopher Jayaram issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kansas from enforcing two pro-life laws, one of which has been in effect since 1997.

The new law blocked by this order would have required abortion businesses to inform women about the availability of abortion pill reversal before they take mifepristone, the first drug in the abortion pill regimen.

Mifepristone causes abortions by disrupting the pregnancy hormone, progesterone. Progesterone facilitates the flow of oxygen and nutrients from the mother's body to her unborn child. By disrupting progesterone, mifepristone causes unborn children to die by asphyxiation and starvation.

Mothers who regret taking the mifepristone can attempt to save their children by getting a progesterone prescription from a pro-life physician. This practice is known as abortion pill reversal. Progesterone is also prescribed to help mothers facing difficult pregnancies.

In addition to blocking the requirement that abortion businesses notify women about the existence of abortion pill reversal, Jayaram's order blocks the enforcement of Kansas's 1997 "Woman's Right to Know" Act. Among other things, this law instituted a 24-hour waiting between initial consultation and a clinic committing an abortion.

According to Kansas Right to Life, the court order also blocks legal requirements that abortion businesses provide access to ultrasounds, notify the mother of her child's gestational age, and notify the mother that she has the right to change her mind before the abortion is committed.

Click here to read more.

Three More Hospitalizations at "Hope" Abortion Clinic in Granite City

A report by Operation Rescue confirms three more hospitalizations caused by Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois within the last three months.

Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization dedicated to reporting medical emergencies caused by abortion clinics, obtained redacted 911 call recordings from August 4, September 7, and September 29.

Click here to listen to the recordings.

The August 4 emergency call was very short. A clinic employee told the dispatcher that a patient "needs to go to a higher level of care for evaluation." The dispatcher responded that she would send an ambulance, and the call ended. No information was provided about what kind of injury the patient suffered, whether she was conscious, or whether she was breathing.

On September 7, a Hope Clinic employee called to request an ambulance for a 35-year-old patient with excessive bleeding. Hemorrhaging, usually caused by uterine perforation,  is a common injury incurred by women during surgical abortions.

On September 29, Hope Clinic called 911 to request an ambulance for a 38-year-old patient for "sedation purposes." The clinic employee requested that the patient be transferred to Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a level 1 trauma center in St. Louis, Missouri. Like the August 4 incident, it is unclear what kind of medical emergency the patient suffered.

Operation Rescue only obtains records for medical emergencies reported by pro-life witnesses on the sidewalk. While Hope Clinic For Women has averaged over one hospitalization per month based on eyewitness reports, it may cause unreported emergencies on days when pro-life advocates are not present.

Click here to read more.

Thomas More Society Files Motion to Dismiss Political Charges Against Undercover Journalist David Daleiden

David Daleiden

On October 26, Thomas More Society attorneys representing pro-life undercover journalist David Daleiden filed a motion to dismiss political charges brought against him by pro-abortion California prosecutors and Planned Parenthood. The motion alleges that California's law prohibiting the recording of "confidential" conversations violates the First Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July 2023 (Project Veritas v. Schmidt) that Oregon's law prohibiting so-called "confidential" conversations in public spaces violated the First Amendment. Thomas More Society attorneys argue that California's recording law is similar, and therefore also violates the First Amendment.

Daleiden currently faces nine felony counts for alleged violations of California recording and other related laws. In 2015, he posed as a worker for a medical research company seeking to purchase body parts harvested from aborted children. He recorded conversations with Planned Parenthood officials, during which they disclosed information about their harvesting techniques. These techniques illegally modified abortion procedures in an effort to obtain more intact body parts. Further, the recorded footage suggests that Planned Parenthood harvested organs from children born alive during attempted abortions.

Click here to see the undercover footage released by Daleiden's organization, the Center for Medical Progress.

“The Ninth Circuit has recognized the First Amendment value in undercover recording, especially in public settings and on topics of public interest,” shared Peter Breen, the Thomas More Society's executive vice president and head of litigation. “David Daleiden did exactly that, recording high level Planned Parenthood personnel in open settings, discussing and admitting conduct that violates numerous state and federal laws. It’s long past time for this political prosecution to be dismissed.”

“There is absolutely no compelling government interest in prohibiting recordings of speech in public settings, including those at issue in this case,” Breen continued. “David Daleiden’s 30-month investigation generated videos and evidence that spurred Congressional hearings, criminal referrals, policy and law changes, along with nationwide efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.”

Click here to read more.

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

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R)

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

Maine Law Allowing Abortion at Any Stage Takes Effect

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Rep Mike Johnson Elected Speaker of the House

US Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)

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

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

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

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

Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Heartbeat Law, Reversing Lower Court Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Colorado APR Ban

Bella Health cofounders Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

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

Piotrus / Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

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

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D)

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

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

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

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

Click here to read more.

American Medical Association to Debate Acceptance of Assisted Suicide

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

The AMA's current code of ethics states,

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

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

Physicians:

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

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

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

Click here to read more.