House Passes $1.9 Trillion Spending Bill Funding Abortion

photo credit: Giorgio Trovato / Unsplash

When the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to pass H.R. 1319, otherwise known as the American Rescue Plan Act, it did so without any language banning or restricting the use of those funds to pay for abortions.

The final vote in the House was 220-211. Every Republican representative voted against the legislation, but only one Democrat (Rep. Jared Golden of Maine) stood with them. Every other Democrat voted in favor of the bill. 

National Right to Life pointed out several parts of the bill that allocate federal tax dollars for purposes that would include abortion:

• $219 billion to state, and $130 billion to local, governments “to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from” COVID-19. Because Hyde Amendment language was not used, governments can use these funds to pay for abortions in the name of “responding to or mitigating the public health emergency.”
• $204 million for State Department expenses to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus domestically or internationally, which shall include maintaining Department of State operations.” The Helms Amendment was not applied to this spending, so these funds can be spent on abortion.
• $500 million is appropriated for the foreign humanitarian response, again “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” The Helms Amendment wasn't applied to this spending either.

The Family Research Council went on to break down $450 billion in funds that can be used to pay for or subsidize abortions both in the US and overseas. Click here to read their full breakdown.

“Abortion is not health care and forcing taxpayers to prop up the abortion industry during a pandemic does not help the millions of Americans deeply impacted by COVID,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Pro-abortion Democrats are more interested in funding Planned Parenthood and abortion providers than in providing real solutions for the American people.

Tobias continued, “The vast majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortions, yet the COVID relief reconciliation bill passed by House Democrats betrays their constituents and provides for taxpayer funding of abortion.”

Click here to read more.

Arkansas Gov. Signs Abortion Ban into Law

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) Tuesday signed a bill that would make abortion illegal in Arkansas for any reason except to save the mother's life.

Arkansas politicians understand that the bill will not hold up to the judicial precedent of Roe v. Wade, but they hope to use this law as a means to challenge that precedent. 

Gov. Hutchinson said the law “is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law.”

The law is written to take effect 90 days after the current session of the Arkansas legislature ends. By that time, pro-abortion legal teams will have filed their legal challenges. The Arkansas chapter of the ACLU has already promised that it “will be seeing the state of Arkansas in court again.”

Click here to read more.

Illinois Abortionist with History of Harming Patients Argues for Repeal of Parental Notification

Family Planning Associates abortion clinic in Chicago
photo credit: Operation Rescue

Last month, Chicago abortionist Dr. Allison Cowett wrote an op-ed for the Chicago Sun-Times to argue for the repeal of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act. The article, written by an abortionist whose practice has caused the deaths of at least four young women, causes the notification law "dangerous." In truth, repealing the law and the practice of abortion, in general, is dangerous.

Dr. Cowett is the medical director of Family Planning Associates (FPA). The FPA-owned Albany Medical Surgical Center in Chicago is a prime example of the dangers of abortion. The facility was closed after it repeatedly failed safety inspections and caused the deaths of 13-year-old Deanna Bell, 22-year-old Maria Rodriquez, 26-year-old Maria Leho, and 16-year-old Nakia Jorden. Before then, Illinois failed to inspect the facility for 18 consecutive years. Another Chicago FPA facility hospitalized a patient as recently as New Year's Eve.

Cowett's personal record is not much better. 10 abortion patients have filed medical malpractice claims against her, and one of her patients was sent to the hospital in critical condition last April.

In her op-ed arguing for the repeal of Illinois' parental notification law, Dr. Cowett wrote,

"Most of the young women in my practice involve a parent or trusted adult in their abortion decision. And the younger the teen, the more likely she is to involve an adult. These facts are true in my office and throughout Illinois. Those who do not involve an adult do so with good reason — often because they are survivors of abuse or neglect. Some fear for their safety or the loss of shelter and food if their parents discover their pregnancy or their abortion decision. Others believe they will be forced to continue a pregnancy they did not plan and do not want."

Dr. Cowett's argument implies that minors living in abusive households should stay there rather than seek help, and it fails to inform readers that Illinois only requires parents to be informed of their daughter's decision. Parental consent is not required.

The Parental Notice of Abortion Act is good not only because it allows parents to be involved in the life-ending decision of abortion, but also because it helps to expose rape and abuse when it causes teenage pregnancies. Even minors who go through the judicial bypass system and speak with a judge so that they can avoid parental notification bring these details to light. Girls who are pressured and afraid might simply have an abortion rather than let anybody know what has happened to them.

Click here to read more.

March 9 Parental Notification Repeal Update

photo credit: Randy von Liski / Flickr

HB1797, which would repeal Illinois' Parental Notification of Abortion Act, was assigned to the House Human Services Committee on Tuesday, March 9.

Below is the list of Representatives on that committee, which can also be viewed on the Illinois General Assembly website here. If your representative is on the committee, please call them and tell them to oppose the repeal of the Parental Notification of Abortion Act when it is heard in the committee.

We will update you on this website and using our email list when the bill is scheduled for a hearing. Make sure to sign up for our newsletter using the sidebar on the right if you would like to receive those updates.

Illinois House of Representatives Human Services Committee Members

Chairperson:                       Anna Moeller (D) 43rd District

Vice-Chairperson:                Lindsey LaPointe (D) 19th District

Republican Spokesperson:    Norine K. Hammond (R) 93rd District

Member:                             Jaime M. Andrade, Jr. (D) 40th District

Member:                             Kelly M. Cassidy (D) 14th District

Member:                             Lakesia Collins (D) 9th District

Member:                             Tom Demmer (R) 90th District

Member:                             Mary E. Flowers (D) 31st District

Member:                             Robyn Gabel (D) 18th District

Member:                             Amy Grant (R) 42nd District

Member:                             Jackie Haas (R) 79th District

Member:                             Charles Meier (R) 108th District

Member:                             Bob Morgan (D) 58th District

Member:                             Suzanne Ness (D) 66th District

Member:                             Tom Weber (R) 64th District

5 Pro-Life Bills Introduced in IL House Human Services Committee

Along with the dangerous HB1797, which would repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, five pro-life bills are currently sitting in the Illinois House of Representatives Human Services Committee. 

HB 683

The Ultrasound Opportunity Act (HB 683), sponsored by Paul Jacobs (R-Carbondale), would require abortionists to give women seeking abortions the opportunity to view a live ultrasound of their unborn babies beforehand.

Click here to file a witness slip in support of HB 683.

HB 338

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (HB 338), is sponsored by Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield). It declares that a child born alive as the result of a failed abortion attempt be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Click here to file a witness slip in support of HB 338.

HB 783

HB 783, sponsored by Patrick Windhorst (R-Harrisburg), would repeal legislation requiring taxpayer funding of abortion.

Click here to file a witness slip in support of HB 783.

HB 791

HB 791, also sponsored by Patrick Windhorst, would amend the 2019 Reproductive Health Act to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks except in the case of a medical emergency.

Click here to file a witness slip in support of HB 791.

HB 827

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (HB 827), sponsored by Adam Niemerg (R-Teutopolis) would hold abortionists criminally guilty of a Class 4 felony if they complete a partial-birth abortion that isn't medically necessary. It would also allow grandparents to sue abortionists for completing a partial-birth abortion on their daughter if she is a minor, and the grandparents did not consent to the abortion. Pregnant mothers would never be held criminally responsible for partial-birth abortions under this act.

Click here to file a witness slip in support of HB 827.

Senate Approves $1.9 Trillion Stimulus without Hyde Protections. House to Reconcile Bill Differences.

photo credit: John Brighenti / Flickr

After the US Senate voted on Saturday to pass a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill without the protection of Hyde Amendment language, the House could vote to reconcile the differences with their own bill as soon as Tuesday, March 9.

The Senate voted 50-49 in favor of the stimulus, titled the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Among many other things, the bill includes funding for vaccine distribution and stimulus checks. The bill does not include any language that would prevent taxpayer funds from being used to fund or subsidize abortions, however. Relief bills in 2020 did include Hyde language.

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford introduced a motion to add Hyde language, but it failed to meet the 60 votes necessary.

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Extends Injunctions Against Tennessee Pro-Life Law

A federal judge has chosen to extend an injunction preventing the state of Tennessee from enforcing a pro-life law.

Last July, Tennessee passed a law that banned abortion under several circumstances. If the unborn child's heartbeat is detectable; or the reasoning for the abortion discriminates against the child's sex, race, or prenatal diagnosis, that abortion would be banned under HB2263. It included other restrictions based on the gestational age of unborn children and required abortionists to notify women about abortion pill reversal.

U.S. District Judge William Campbell issued a temporary restraining order against the heartbeat and gestational age restrictions in July. He followed that up by issuing another temporary restraining order against the abortion pill reversal part of the law in September. He attempted to block the measure outlawing discriminatory abortions as well, but the Sixth Circuit ruled that the portion of the law could go into effect.

Judge Campbell's order extends his injunctions against the three provisions that he blocked already.

Stacy Dunn, president of Tennessee Right to Life, criticized the judge's ruling: “The work that pro-life Tennesseans and their duly elected officials have done to protect women and their unborn children is under attack by the abortion industry. Judge Campbell’s decision plays right into the hands of those who want to keep women in the dark about their unborn children and all the options available to them.”

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Rules ERA Ratification Deadline Still Applies

Equal Rights Amendment Demonstration
Credit: Cornell University / Flickr

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled last Friday that votes made by state legislators in recent years cannot legally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). She ruled that the March 22, 1979 deadline set by Congress when the amendment was originally sent to the states remains valid today.

Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia had sued the Archivist of the United States in federal district court for refusing to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution. Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020 each voted to ratify the expired amendment. Contreras's ruling agreed with the defendant states that the deadline set in the Proposing Clause of the ERA resolution is legally binding.

Contreras did not rule on whether states have the right to rescind ratification before a deadline, or if Congress has the right to retroactively remove the deadline with new legislation.

The latter is exactly with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) intends to do. He announced on March 2 that the House will vote on a measure claiming to remove the expired ERA deadline. He said that the measure should see a vote during the week of March 15.

Douglas D. Johnson, senior policy advisor for National Right to Life and director of its ERA Project, said, “Democratic congressional leaders and attorneys general are part of a political-pressure campaign to intimidate the federal courts into permitting them to air-drop the long-expired ERA into the Constitution. Today, a federal judge appointed by President Obama ignored the political pressures and unflinchingly enforced the Constitution.”

Johnson continued: “The upcoming votes in Congress are another chapter in the political-pressure campaign directed at the courts. The Constitution does not empower Congress to time travel to 1972 to resuscitate a long-dead constitutional amendment.”

The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after Virginia voted to "ratify" the ERA, said that she believes the amendment should have a "new beginning. I'd like it to start over." She agreed that the deadline had passed decades ago, and there are many legal issues with a late ratification. Ginsburg noted, “how can you disregard states that said, ‘We’ve changed our minds’?” Five states have done so.

According to National Right to Life, the 1972 ERA as written could be interpreted to end state and federal laws restricting abortion in any way. Additionally, it could be construed to require state and federal programs to fund abortion.

National Right to Life released a fact sheet showing the connections between the 1972 ERA and abortion. To view or download it, click here.

Click here to read more.

Live Baby Rescued after Abandonment in Boston Trash Can

A Boston woman who heard the cry of a baby saved him by informing EMTs that were happened to be nearby.

Both the mother and the baby have since been found according to CBS, and both are being treated at a local hospital. Police are investigating the circumstances and may press charges against the mother.

Silvana Sanchez, who found the child in the trash can, told WBZ-TV, “To be honest, I was just really nervous so I didn’t want to look inside of it and be the one to find it and do all the stuff.” She continued, “You probably don’t even believe me, but it was kind of by luck that EMTs were there and he came over. They ran with the baby to the truck and took him straight to the hospital.”

Both Massachusetts and Illinois have safe haven laws that allow mothers to give their newborn children anonymously. These children can continue to live full lives, even if the mother doesn't believe they can provide for them.

In Illinois, newborns up to 30 days old can be left at a staffed police station, fire station, hospital, or emergency care facility. From there, the baby will be given medical care and can be adopted by a loving family.

Click here to read more.

New Mexico Gov. Legalizes Abortion-on-Demand

NM Gov. Lujan Grisham (D)

Last Friday, New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham (D) signed into law a bill legalizing abortion-on-demand and taking conscience protections away from doctors.

The bill repealed a 1969 law that outright banned the practice of abortion in New Mexico. After Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, however, the law became unenforceable.

Pro-life legislators in New Mexico voiced concerns, not only that this bill endorses the practice of killing unborn children, but also that physicians' consciences won't be adequately protected by the remaining legal code.

The Republican Party of New Mexico gave the following statement:

“This is a sad day for New Mexico. When Gov. Lujan Grisham penned her name to Senate Bill 10, she signed a death warrant. She, along with dozens of New Mexico Democratic lawmakers, approved the order to end the lives of thousands of unborn children. The new law is an immoral, dangerous one–a law that allows late-term abortion and offers no protections for girls, women or health professionals. It permits the murder of the unborn, endangers the health and lives of women and eliminates any conscience provision to allow a doctor to opt out if he or she opposes the procedure on moral, ethical or religious grounds.”

 Click here to read more.

Pro-abortion Legislators Call on Biden to End Amendments Blocking Abortion Spending

photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Pro-abortion politicians on Tuesday sent a letter to President Biden to argue for the removal of pro-life protections from the federal budget.

The letter (which was co-signed by IL Sen. Tammy Duckworth and IL Rep. Janice Schakowsky) requests that Biden "eliminate the Hyde Amendment, the Weldon Amendment, the Helms Amendment, and other similar abortion coverage restrictions from your Fiscal Year 2022 budget."

The Hyde Amendment restricts the use of taxpayer funds for elective abortions in the U.S., while the Helms Amendment does the same for funds that are spent abroad. The Weldon Amendment restricts federal funding to states that discriminate against pro-life health care entities.

The Hyde and Helms amendments have been applied to Congressional spending bills since the 1970s, but recently pro-abortion lawmakers have taken a hard stance against them.

Pro-life lawmakers urging Congressional leadership not to end the amendments. Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN.) led a group of pro-life congressmen in sending another letter to House and Senate leadership.

That letter read:

“Each year since 1976, Congress has included Hyde protections in annually enacted appropriations. No president in American history has ever vetoed an appropriations bill due to its inclusion of the Hyde Amendment. Moreover, President Obama maintained the Hyde Amendment in each of his budget proposals. As recent as June 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment and acknowledged that it works harmoniously with federal funding for women’s healthcare.”

It goes on to point out that the majority of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund elective abortions. “Years of public polling indicate that repealing the Hyde Amendment is opposed by most of the American public. Congressional Democrats now seek to further erode public trust in government by ignoring mainstream public opinion in favor of placating the radical Left.”

The letter supporting the pro-life amendments was co-signed by IL Representatives Mike Bost, Darin LaHood, Rodney Davis, and Mary Miller.

Click here to read more.

Senate Finance Committee Votes to Advance HHS Secretary Nomination of Xavier Becerra

California Attorney General and HHS Secretary Nominee Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

The U.S. Senate Finance Committee moved on Wednesday to advance the nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The committee's vote was evenly split 14-14 along party lines. As a result, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer broke the tie to bring Becerra's nomination before the full Senate for a vote.

“Xavier Becerra has no health care experience but, if confirmed, would lead the Department of Health and Human Services during a pandemic,” Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “While Mr. Becerra lacks health care experience, he makes up for it with his proven track record of extreme abortion advocacy and hostility to pro-lifers.”

Becerra is known for going after pro-life Californians using his power as Attorney General.

• He targeted pro-life pregnancy resource centers and forced them to advertise abortion under the Reproductive FACT Act (which has since been struck down).
• He sued the federal government when an HHS rule granted the Little Sisters of the Poor a religious exemption from a contraception coverage mandate
• After the Center for Medical Progress exposed Planned Parenthood for harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies, Becerra prosecuted the pro-life undercover journalists for their work.

“Mr. Becerra’s nomination by this administration is a favor to the abortion industry,” Tobias said. It is difficult to conclude otherwise when Mr. Becerra brings no public health experience to the position. Putting him at the head of the nation’s health care agency is a prescription for disaster.”

Click here to read more.

March 3 Parental Notification Repeal Update

HB1797, which would the Repeal of the Parental Notification Act of 1995, was introduced on February 16, 2021, by Rep. Anna Moeller (D). It is currently in the Rules Committee awaiting assignment to a standing House Committee.

Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch (D), the new Speaker of the House, has joined as a Co-Sponsor of the bill.

Please watch for our updates and alerts as we track this legislation.

Pro-Abortion Activists Have Occupied a Mexican State Capitol for Months

photo credit: Carl Hancock / Flickr

Since late November 2020, pro-abortion feminist activists have occupied the capitol building of Quintana Roo, the Mexican state that includes the city of Cancún.

The activists held a sit-in outside the congress building in Chetumal starting on Nov. 25, 2020, but then on Nov. 27 they stormed the building and have continued to occupy it since. Now, the building is damaged and tagged with graffiti.

Recently, the feminists replaced the Mexican flag outside the building with a green cloth displaying the slogan "abortion on demand." The Mexican army stepped in to remove the banner on Feb. 26.

The women demanded that the legislature vote to legalize abortion. Several legislators supporting such legislation have met with them and promised them that they would not be prosecuted for their actions.

The group had told officials that they would leave in early February, but they instead chose to stay after pro-life legislators temporarily stopped an attempt to pass a bill legalizing abortion.

Brenda del Río, the founder and director of the National Campaign for Life--Long Live Mexico, said to ACI Prensa that these actions are "green terrorism," after the color used by pro-abortion activists in Latin America.

del Rio told ACI Prensa that pro-abortion legislators- by dealing with the radical group- have promoted the idea that “if you want to advance a social cause, legal or illegal, you have to vandalize, threaten, take over public buildings and force lawmakers to fulfill an international agenda that is alien to the principles of Mexico. This amounts to the promotion of violence.”

She went on to argue that the legalization of abortion is being pushed heavily by foreigners and that the real problems plaguing Quintana Roo were going unanswered.

“Is it really a healthcare problem that seven women from this state went last year to Mexico City to get an abortion? Of course not. What really is a shame in Quintana Roo … is the trafficking of children in Playa del Carmen, where pimps rent Mexican children for hours or even days to Europeans, Americans, and Canadians.”

"What do we urgently need to legalize in Mexico? Maternity. Workers who are pregnant are fired from their jobs. Pregnant women are abandoned by the man. Poor women are pressured in clinics to be temporarily or permanently sterilized. Pregnant students do not have childcare in high schools or at the university,” del Rio said.

Click here to read more.

South Dakota Gov. Signs Legislation Protecting Abortion Survivors

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)

Last Wednesday, South Dakota became the most recent state to pass Born-Alive protections for abortion survivors.

Gov. Kristi Noem signed South Dakota House Bill 1051 on Feb. 24, requiring medical professionals to give the same degree of care to babies who survive attempted abortions as they would to any other children born at the same gestational age. Additionally, the law allows mothers to sue doctors or abortion facilities that don't provide the required health care to their babies.

Doctors or abortion facilities which violate the law could be subject to fines, and they will be required to report all live births occurring during attempted abortions to the South Dakota Department of Health.

“The pro-life cause continues even after a child is born, and this bill will guarantee the right to life for every baby that is born alive,” said Gov. Noem. “We expect doctors to treat all children equally, even those born in horrific circumstances. That’s basic human decency.”

Defense Files Opening Brief with Ninth Circuit in David Daleiden Case

David Daleiden
photo credit: American Life League / Flickr

On behalf of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and David Daleiden, attorneys for Life Legal filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit on Friday, Feb. 26.

Daleiden and the CMP released a series of videos in July 2015 showing undercover conversations with Planned Parenthood executives. These videos exposed Planned Parenthood's practice of harvesting and selling body parts from aborted children, but the video creators were immediately sued by Planned Parenthood.

The abortion corporation claimed that the videos caused millions of dollars in damages to their organization, and the pro-life undercover journalists were found guilty in a 2019 jury trial. The defendants were found liable on claims for fraud, trespass, racketeering, and unlawful recording. 

Planned Parenthood spent large sums of money on reputation repair services and consultations to help them avoid being caught by undercover investigators in the future, but Life Legal argues that those costs are not damages caused by Daleiden or the CMP. In total, the judgment awards Planned Parenthood $2.4 million in damages and $13.7 million in attorney costs.

If the jury's ruling is struck down by the Ninth Circuit, all of the awards from the lower court will fall.

"This should be an easy case for the Ninth Circuit," said Catherine Short, Life Legal's Vice-President of Legal Affairs. "The trial judge let in so much prejudicial testimony that the defendants were denied a fair trial. But more importantly, the undisputed evidence showed that Planned Parenthood had no damages. It had no case, and this should never have even gotten to a jury."

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Constitutionality of Protect Life Rule

photo credit: Davis Staedtler / Flickr

In February, the Supreme Court announced that it will consider a case challenging the Trump administration's 2019 Protect Life Rule, which prevented Title X funding from funding or subsidizing abortions.

The HHS rule prohibited organizations that received funding from the Title X family planning program from providing abortions, co-locating with abortion facilities, or referring patients to abortion facilities.

In response to this rule, Planned Parenthood chose to withdraw from the Title X program. It is estimated that the abortion giant stepped away from $60 million in annual taxpayer funding with this decision.

While the Biden administration has already directed the HHS to review the Protect Life Rule (and it is unlikely that the rule is currently being enforced), the court will still hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Trump administration's rule. This is important because it will determine whether a future president will be allowed to enforce similar rules.

So far, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue. The Ninth Circuit upheld it last February, while the Fourth Circuit ruled against it last September.

Click here to read more.

House of Representatives Passes $1.9 Trillion Spending Bill without Hyde Protections

After the House of Representatives debated about the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill late into the evening of Feb. 26, the body voted in favor of the bill by a margin of seven votes. The House approved the bill without a single Republican vote, in no-small-part because the bill did not include the protections of the Hyde Amendment. Without the Hyde Amendment language, this gigantic spending bill can be used to funnel taxpayer dollars into the abortion industry.

The Hyde Amendment was a bipartisan set of language tagged onto all Congressional spending bills. After decades of being included in spending bills, this bill threatening to break with tradition is estimated to potentially allow $414 billion to be used to fund elective abortions or insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

On Friday, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who co-chairs the House Pro-Life Caucus, pointed out that the exclusion of Hyde language is “a radical departure from all previous COVID-19 relief laws,” which “mandates taxpayer funding of abortion-on-demand."

On Friday, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment to re-insert Hyde language into the $1.9 trillion spending bill. 206 members co-sponsored this amendment, but it was ultimately struck down by the Rules Committee.

“Democrat leaders in the House are not interested in the wishes of the majority of Americans who oppose taxpayer funding of abortions,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Democrat leaders are more concerned with fulfilling election-year promises made to pro-abortion groups. Those groups are interested in abortion at any time, anywhere, for any reason, and paid for by taxpayers.”

Click here to read more.

Rep. Anna Moeller Introduces Bill Repealing Illinois Parental Notification of Abortion Act

43rd District Representative Anna Moeller (D)
photo from Illinois General Assembly bio

On Feb 17, Rep. Anna Moeller introduced HB1797 to the Illinois House of Representatives. This bill is important for pro-lifers to follow, as it repeals one of the final abortion regulations in the state: parental notification.

Those who are politically active will have seen this coming. Pro-abortion legislators have attempted to repeal parental notification before, and Planned Parenthood has already stated its intentions to push for parental notification's repeal in 2021.

Currently, abortion businesses are required to inform a minor's parent or guardian at least 48 hours before that minor has an abortion. She is not required to get permission from her parent or guardian after they are informed, but abortion businesses are obligated to at least make a minor's caretakers aware of the situation.

Additionally, as is often the case with many parental notification laws across the country, minors in Illinois can receive a judicial bypass from a judge. This means that if a judge approves, the minor can still have an abortion without notifying a parent or guardian. The idea is that a girl living in an abusive or violent situation can avoid the repercussions that might come with parental notification.

In practice, abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood often know which judges they can contact to get judicial bypasses for any abortion-seeking minor.

Additionally, judicial bypass introduces major problems by covering up rape, sex-trafficking, and abuse. A girl who has been raped, perhaps even by a family member, can go right back to her previous living situation after having an abortion. If the girl was raped by someone outside of her family, her parents will never learn about it. The absence of parental consent enables these crimes to go unnoticed and unpunished.

By repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, pro-abortion politicians will only be enabling this type of behavior even further.

Expect to see more about HB 1797 in the coming weeks.

US House Passes "Equality Act," which would Expand Abortion and Remove Conscience Protections

photo credit: John Brighenti / Flickr

On Thursday afternoon, the US House of Representatives voted 224-206 (largely along party lines) to approve H.R. 5, otherwise known as the Equality Act. This legislation would write transgenderism into civil rights law, compel medical professionals to participate in abortions and transgender surgeries, and expand taxpayer-funding of abortion.

The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by defining "sex" to include “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” It is known that abortion is considered to be a "related medical condition" for the sake of this legislation.

The "Equality Act" reads that “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions,” and would add “establishments that provide health care” to the list of covered “public accommodations.”

Jennifer Popik, director of federal legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, said, “If enacted, H.R. 5 would open the door for widespread litigation wherein any attempt to restrict abortion, including the funding of abortion, would constitute discrimination.”

Provisions in H.R. 5 also override moral and religious conscience protections physicians have to object to abortions and gender transitioning procedures.

“Forcing health care providers to perform abortions in violation of their conscience rights clearly violates the Constitution,” said NRLC President Carol Tobias. “But pro-abortion forces and their allies in Congress are more concerned about expanding access to abortion.”

All House Democrats voted in favor of the bill, along with three Republicans. Those three representatives are Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Rep. John Katko of New York, and Rep. Tom Reed of New York.

Click here to read more.