July 6, 2021

New Ohio Law Protects Doctors' Conscience Rights

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R)
Last Thursday, Ohio enacted a budget bill including a provision to protect the conscience rights of doctors who oppose abortion and other practices.

A section of the budget bill says that doctors and healthcare institutions can refuse to provide services that conflict with their “moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles.” The bill states:

"Notwithstanding any conflicting provision of the Revised Code, a medical practitioner, health care institution, or health care payer has the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles held by the practitioner, institution, or payer."

While some were unsure whether Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) would use his line-item veto powers to block these protections, pro-lifers were relieved when he said the conscience rights clause was "not a problem."

“In the real world, most of those rights are not only recognized and exercised by medical professionals, but they’re being accepted by other medical professionals,” the governor said. “That is the way the world generally works. This is basically put in statute and codified.”

“Let’s say the doctor is against abortion,” he continued. “If the doctor is not doing abortions, if there’s other things that maybe a doctor has a conscience problem with, it’s worked out. Somebody else does those things. This is not a problem, has not been a problem in the state of Ohio and I do not expect it to be a problem.”

Click here to read more.

Missouri Attorney General Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Pro-Life Law

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R)
On July 1, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) requested that the Supreme Court hear a case to reinstate the "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act."

The 2019 law bans abortions committed purely due to an unborn child's race, sex, or prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. The law also contains tiered abortion bans after eight, 14, 18, and 20 weeks of gestation. Hearing the challenge to this law would require the court to analyze each stage independently and state exactly if/when abortion bans are allowed.

According to the AG Schmitt's office, the Petition “presents three questions for the Supreme Court’s review”:

  • Whether Missouri’s restriction on abortions performed solely because the unborn child may have Down syndrome is categorically invalid under Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), or whether it is a valid, reasonable regulation of abortion that seeks to prevent the elimination of children with Down syndrome through eugenic abortion?
  • Whether Missouri’s restrictions on abortions performed after eight, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty weeks’ gestational age are categorically invalid, or whether they are valid, reasonable regulations of abortion that advance important state interests?
  • Whether the “penumbral” right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and partially reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), should be overruled?

July 5, 2021

Louisiana Gov. Signs Abortion Pill Reversal Disclosure Act

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D)
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) last Friday signed into law legislation requiring abortionists to inform women that they might be able to save their children if they regret taking the abortion pill mifepristone.

HB 578 requires that when a physician or or medical service provider administers mifepristone (the first part of the abortion pill regimen) to a pregnant woman, she is given a disclosure informing her that she should contact a physician immediately if she regrets her abortion to learn what options she has to potentially save her child.

This disclosure can be given to the woman along with the packaging for misoprostol (the second part of the abortion pill regimen) or attached to the patient's discharge instructions if she is collecting her prescription from a pharmacy.

Concern for unborn life does not have to be a partisan issue, and Gov. Edwards demonstrated this by signing this pro-life bill into law.

July 2, 2021

Proposed HHS Rule Allows Affordable Care Act to Pay for Abortions

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT)
On Tuesday, the chair of the Senate pro-life caucus criticized a proposed rule published by the Department of Health and Human Services that would allow taxpayer funds to pay for elective abortions through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“Abortion is not healthcare and taxpayers should not be subsidizing it,” said Senate Pro-Life Caucus chair Steve Daines (R-MT) on Tuesday. “This is another move by President Biden and Secretary Becerra to promote their abortion agenda above following the law, and is even more alarming as Democrats look to increase taxpayer subsidies for Obamacare,” he continued.

The ACA originally contained Hyde Amendment language when it was passed by the Obama administration, making it illegal for federal funds to subsidize abortion through the program. A 2014 Government Accountability Office report found that many insurers ignored these requirements, however, and abortion coverage was not being separated from other kinds of health insurance coverage.

Federal courts blocked President Trump's 2019 attempt to prohibit abortion funding through the Affordable Care Act by requiring separate bills for abortion coverage.

The new rule would only require a single bill and payment of federally-covered services, including abortion coverage.

Click here to read more.

Biden Nominee Believes Children are an "Environmental Hazard"

Tracy Stone-Manning, President Biden's nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management, has been revealed to be a population control advocate.

Reporting by the Daily Caller revealed that Stone-Manning's 1992 graduate thesis focused on the idea of overpopulation. For her thesis, she created eight advertisements aiming to persuade Americans that they should have fewer children.

If there were fewer of us, we would have less impact,” Stone-Manning wrote in her thesis. “We must consume less, and more importantly, we must breed fewer consuming humans.”

One of the advertisements she created for her thesis included a picture of a baby with the caption: "Can you find the environmental hazard in this photo?

Stone-Manning said that the advertisements were aimed at couples planning families to convince them that “the earth can’t afford Americans.” She said she wanted the ads to be “ironic and shocking, because irony and shock have value. They stop readers and viewers, making them pay attention.”

Population control policies (if China is any example) lead to other human rights violations such as forced abortions, sterilizations, pregnancy discrimination.

Stone-Manning also faces heavy criticism for her involvement in acts of eco-terrorism. She avoided criminal penalties for her actions by testifying against her friend and former roommate.

July 1, 2021

Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Against Indiana Abortion Pill Reversal Law

On June 22, U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon issued a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of Indiana's HB 1577, which would require abortion businesses to inform women seeking chemical abortions about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR).

HB 1577 was passed by both houses of the Indiana legislature and signed into law in April by Gov. Eric Holcomb. If Judge Hanlon had not issued a temporary injunction, the law would have gone into effect on July 1.

APR works by counteracting the effects of mifepristone, the first drug in the two-pill chemical abortion regimen. Mifepristone starves an unborn baby by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone, which facilitates the flow of oxygen and nutrients from a mother to her child. APR is a process by which the mother is given additional progesterone, thereby restoring the flow of oxygen and nutrients. APR has saved over 2,000 babies to date.

Judge Hanlon agreed with the pro-abortion plaintiffs that HB 1577 could violate the First Amendment rights of abortion businesses by requiring compelled content-based speech. He also implied that APR is unproven and unsafe, which discounts the success of APR.

Click here to read more.

Win! Federal Appeals Court Unanimously Rules ERA is Dead

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was not legally ratified.

In a bizarre move, pro-abortion legislators in Illinois (2018), Virginia (2020), and Nevada (2017) voted to ratify the amendment 42 years after it expired. After doing so, pro-abortion legislators claimed that the ERA had been ratified by two-thirds of the states (the minimum amount required to amend the Constitution). Not only had the amendment expired, however, but legislatures in several states now have different opinions than the ones that initially voted on the amendment nearly half a century ago.

In particular, the ERA as interpreted by many could codify abortion rights into the Constitution. A ratified ERA might prove to be much harder to overturn than Roe v. Wade, which based its decision on the idea that abortion is legal under the Constitution's implied right to privacy.

In a win for the pro-life movement, the courts continue to agree that the ERA ratification process legally ended decades ago, and the amendment is not a part of the constitution.

“Today’s ruling continues an unbroken, 40-year losing streak by advocates of the ERA-is-alive cult in the federal courts, before federal judges of every stripe of judicial philosophy and political background,” said Douglas Johnson, director of the National Right to Life Committee’s ERA Project.

This particular lawsuit was brought by an organization named Equal Means Equal (EME). In a separate lawsuit, the attorneys general of Illinois, Virginia, and Nevada have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A district judge ruled that the states' votes for ratification "came too late to count" but their appeal is likely to be heard later this year.

Click here to read more.

June 30, 2021

HHS Secretary Becerra Shuts Down Fetal Research Ethics Advisory Board

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra shut down an ethics board set up by President Donald Trump to oversee research using tissue from aborted babies. This board could block any research proposals that deemed to be ethically questionable, but now all of those proposals could easily be implemented and paid for using taxpayer dollars.

137 congressional Republicans responded by sending Becerra a letter asking him to reverse his decision. The letter cites documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealing the FDA's routine “orders for eyeballs, livers, skin, brains, skulls, and sometimes fully intact bodies of infants aborted in the second trimester” from Advanced Bioscience Resources. In these exchanges, Advanced Bioscience Resources serves as a middle man between the federal government and Planned Parenthood.

The letter also cites a report by the Center for Medical Progress revealing horrifying experiments done by the University of Pittsburgh using tissue harvested from aborted children. The University grafted tissue from baby scalps onto lab rats and observed how the rats grew human hair.

Click here to read more.

AP Poll Shows Strong Opposition to Second and Third Trimester Abortions

A poll released by the Associated Press last week shows that most Americans believe abortion should be restricted or banned after the first trimester.

Unfortunately, 61% of Americans said that abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances during the first trimester. Encouragingly however, 65% said most or all second trimester abortions should be illegal. This increased to 80% in the third trimester.

For second trimester abortions, the poll found that, "34% say they should usually [19%] or always [15%] be legal, and another 30% say they should be illegal in most but not all cases."

Regarding third trimester abortions, 26% said that they should be illegal in most cases, 54% said that they should be illegal in all circumstances.

Statistics from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute indicate that over 100,000 abortions killed unborn babies in the second trimester or later during the year 2017 alone. Clearly government policy on abortion does not reflect public opinion.

Click here to read more.

June 29, 2021

Pro-Life House Members Sign Discharge Petition to Vote on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)
After returning from extended medical leave, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) became the 212th House Member to sign a discharge petition to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to a vote before the full House of Representatives. As they have in previous sessions of Congress, however, pro-abortion legislators refuse to let the bill even receive a vote.

The petition must receive 218 signatures to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act out of committee and put it before the full House of Representatives for debate and a vote.

Pro-abortion legislators continue to argue that this legislation is redundant and unnecessary, but this is not true. The 2002 Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (which is often referenced by opponents of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act) does not include an enforcement provision, and therefore has no consequences for abortionists who refuse to provide care for babies who survive attempted abortions. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires these babies to be transported to hospitals where they must receive the same degree of care as any other baby.

In the last Congress, pro-abortion representatives blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act for months.

Click here to read more.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds to Appeal Decision Overturning 24-Hour Waiting Period

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R)
Last Monday, District Court Judge Mitchell Turner ruled that an Iowa law requiring a 24 hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion was unconstitutional. As many pro-life advocates expected, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds quickly announced that she plans on appealing Judge Turner's decision.

At a news conference last Wednesday at the Iowa Capitol, Gov. Reynolds said, “I absolutely don’t agree with the decision, and that’s what the process is for. Certainly, we’ll be appealing that decision, and we’re pretty confident that we can get the outcome that we’re looking for.”

Judge Truner's decision relied on precedent from the Iowa Supreme Court's 2018 decision regarding a 72 hour waiting period law. That waiting period was decided to be unconstitutional, but the court went even further than that; declaring that women have a fundamental right to have an abortion under the Iowa Constitution.

Five of the seven justices on the Supreme Court have been replaced by pro-life Gov. Reynolds since the 2018 decision. This includes four out of the five justices who were in the majority on that decision.

Legislators have also started the long process of amending the Constitution to guarantee that it cannot be interpreted to secure a right to abortion. If the process continues to be successful, Iowans will have the opportunity to vote on that amendment in 2024.

Click here to read more.

June 28, 2021

North Carolina Gov. Vetoes Bill Banning Discriminatory Abortions

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D)
Last Friday, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed legislation that would have banned abortionists from aborting babies if they know that the woman is seeking it due to the unborn child's race, sex, or prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

To overcome the governor's veto, “about two Democrats in the Senate and three in the House would need to vote with Republicans in favor of the abortion restrictions,” the Herald Sun reported.

HB 453, known as the Human Life Nondiscrimination Act/No Eugenics, would require abortionists to confirm before the abortion that the woman is not seeking an abortion because of any of the following: the actual or presumed race or racial makeup of the unborn child; the sex of the unborn child; the presence or presumed presence of Down syndrome.” This makes it different than legislation in other states, which don't require abortionists to proactively ask questions of pregnant mothers. They just prohibit the abortionist from carrying out an abortion if they happen to learn that the reason is discriminatory.

“This bill simply puts an end to eugenics,” Sen. Amy Galey said in a statement responding to Gov. Cooper's veto. “It shouldn’t be controversial to protect an unborn child with Down syndrome, but Gov. Cooper proves once again that he’s unwilling to stand up for North Carolinians when his left-wing donors demand his loyalty.”

Click here to read more.

June 25, 2021

Pro-life Representatives Advocate for "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act" on House Floor

HR 18 Sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Pro-life legislators from the House of Representatives delivered speeches this week in defense of H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. The legislation is a response to President Biden's 2022 budget proposal, which is the first in decades to not include Hyde Amendment protections. Without those protections, federal tax dollars will be used to fund elective abortions on demand under Medicaid.

On Tuesday, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) asked that the House consider H.R. 18, and described the importance of Hyde Amendment language:
"Let’s be clear: The Hyde Amendment is not discriminatory. Instead, it’s an essential safeguard that not only protects Americans’ right of conscience, but also has saved more than two million lives from abortion since it was first enacted in 1976.

Until recently, it was also overwhelmingly bipartisan. In fact, one of its most vocal supporters in Congress was then-Senator Joe Biden. He told one of his constituents in 1994, ‘the government should not tell those with strong convictions against abortion, such as you and I, that we must pay for them.’ Well said, Mr. President.

Since then, the purpose of Hyde hasn’t changed.  
The strong convictions of the American people against abortion haven’t changed. In poll after poll, they tell us they strongly support a wall of separation between abortions and taxpayers.

And the science hasn’t changed. If anything, it has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that human life begins at conception."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) the sponsor of H.R. 18, addressed the House on June 23, asking that Representatives call his bill to a vote. He decried the harm caused by abortion throughout the US:

Over 2.4 million people who would have been aborted instead survived because taxpayer funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise.

Growing numbers of Americans continue to be shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child’s fragile body including decapitation, and that drugs like RU 486 starve the baby to death before he or she is forcibly expelled from the womb.

The multibillion-dollar abortion industry cleverly markets the sophistry of choice while going to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize and cover-up the battered baby-victim.

By reason of their age, dependency, immaturity, inconvenience, fragility and/or unwantedness, unborn children have been denied justice—and the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life.

Click here to read more.

22 State Attorneys General Petition Congress to Restore Hyde Amendment

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R)
On June 21, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall (R) sent a letter to congressional leaders asking them to restore the Hyde Amendment after it was left out from President Biden's 2022 budget request.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal tax dollars from funding elective abortions through Medicaid. Originally introduced by the late Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde, this protection was a bipartisan part of every spending bill since 1976.

Marshall told the Catholic News Agency during a phone interview that “Taxpayers who fundamentally oppose abortion shouldn’t have their tax dollars pay for abortion on demand.”

“We were disappointed to find the conspicuous omission of the Hyde Amendment in the budget proposal that President Biden delivered to Congress earlier this month,” the 22 attorneys general wrote in their letter, arguing that they “have a unique interest in the Hyde Amendment as an important protection for the consciences of the millions of Americans who oppose public funding of abortion.”

June 24, 2021

"For the People Act" Fails to Overcome G.O.P. Filibuster

On Wednesday, a filibuster by Senate Republicans blocked H.R. 1, known as the "For the People Act." This bill was written by the Democratic party in response to election reform legislation which was passed in several Republican states, but it also included language that would have impacted the first amendment rights of organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and its affiliates (such as the IFRL).

National Right to Life wrote in a letter to Senators,

"Enactment of [H.R. 1] would not be a curb on corruption, but is itself a type of corruption – an abuse of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves. Further, this legislation would add a commissioner to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), causing a partisan takeover by significantly increasing the likelihood that the agency could make decisions benefiting the political party in power."

The bill would have created an expansive definition for "the functional equivalent of express advocacy" which would apply to "communications that “when taken as a whole, it can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for election for Federal office." Any organization that gives commentary on the votes or positions of incumbent Congress members could be interpreted to fall within this definition. Thus, these organizations could be forced to keep and report additional records. H.R. 1 would even require these organizations to post identifying information about their financial supporters online, thereby opening them up to harassment and intimidation by those who disagree with them.

By failing to surpass the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, H.R. 1 cannot pass and limit our freedom of speech.

Click here to read more.

Press Secretary Refuses to Answer Whether Biden Believes Preborn Children are Human

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to answer a reporter's question on Monday when she was asked, "Does the President believe that a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being?"

Psaki replied to the question, “Are you asking me if the President supports a woman’s right to choose? He does.”

Several pro-abortion politicians have been asked this question recently, since the Supreme Court is preparing to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization this fall. The case is a challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks gestation. The Supreme Court's decision has the potential to significantly change how abortion is treated under federal law- perhaps even overturning Roe v. Wade entirely.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told CNS news that he would “wait for the Supreme Court decision” rather than tell reporters whether he believed an unborn child should be considered human at 15 weeks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) similarly refused to answer questions about the humanity of an unborn child at that stage of development.

If pro-abortion politicians concede that unborn children are human, which is supported by the fact that unique human genetic code is created during conception, they would also acknowledge that abortion kills human beings. Thus, these politicians would either be denying science or condoning the killing of certain humans. Pro-abortion politicians know how precarious their position is, so they refuse to answer questions like this one.

Click here to read more.

June 23, 2021

Pro-Abortion Advocates Claim Abortion is Good for the Economy

Pro-abortion advocates are citing a new report from the Institute of Women's Policy Research (IWPR) to argue that abortion restrictions hurt the economy. The report estimates that state abortion restrictions cost the economy $105 billion per year, and that allowing unborn babies to be killed at any gestational age for any reason would be worthwhile for its economic benefits.

The study further argues that getting rid of abortion restrictions would cause over 500,000 women to enter the workforce, thereby increasing annual earnings for women by over $1,600 per year.

The IWPR study implies that caring for children is something that women should reject, and it reinforces the idea of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Businesses often pressure women to choose abortion if they want to keep their jobs, and the widespread availability of abortion only helps businesses discriminate in this way.

Ending abortion restrictions is not the answer to this problem. It will only amplify it. Childcare resources and support from fathers can empower working women without the sacrifice of unborn children.

Click here to read more.

Sen. Cruz Addresses Senate Committee: Pro-Abortion WHPA would “strike down any state laws protecting human life”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Wednesday to criticize pro-abortion legislators pushing for the passage of the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA). If the WHPA is passed into law, it would remove virtually all federal and state protections for unborn children.

Sen. Cruz gave a brief history of abortion in the United States, pointing out that the Supreme Court created a right to abortion that was not written into the Constitution by the founding fathers. Since then, 62 million unborn children have lost their lives to abortion. Now, amidst pressure from pro-abortion forces to "codify" Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court can overturn it, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is sponsoring legislation that would go even farther than current Supreme Court precedent. Current precedent allows states to enact some laws regulating or restricting abortion, but the WHPA would remove that ability entirely.

Here is an excerpt of Sen. Cruz's remarks:

“Many state laws protecting life, laws that protect unborn life from the most inhumane abuses and atrocities, should be completely uncontroversial. I want to highlight three examples of these common sense laws. First are laws that protect infants who are born alive or breathing and crying outside the womb after surviving an attempted abortion procedure. This year alone, the states of Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Wyoming have passed laws requiring physicians to provide medical care to these infants because protecting a child who is born alive shouldn’t be even remotely controversial.

“Second are laws that protect unborn children from being killed by horrific dismemberment abortions. These abortions, known as dilation and evacuation, or D and E abortions, are horrendous. They have no place in civilized society. In these abortions, a physician cuts and rips apart the unborn child’s body and extracts piece by piece, arm by arm, leg by leg. What moments before had been a living human being. The unborn child dies the same way as an adult would die who had been dismembered – by bleeding to death as his or her body is torn apart. If an individual murdered an animal in this way, tearing apart a kitten or a puppy, everyone would understandably be horrified and demand that the individual be prosecuted. How can it be that unborn children should be protected less than animals?

“Third, are laws that protect unborn children from being killed because of their immutable characteristics, such as race, sex, or disability status. These are anti-eugenics laws. Plain and simple. Right now, 67 percent of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the United States are aborted.”

Click here to read more.

June 22, 2021

Pro-Life Women at Senate Hearing Testify Against Radical Abortion Bill

photo credit: Eric Walker / Flickr
On June 16, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the recently reintroduced Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA). This bill would end most abortion restrictions across the country, including Illinois's parental notification law.

The precedent of Doe v. Bolton allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy if the abortionist can say that the abortion benefits the "health of the mother" in some way. Abortionists can even argue that having an abortion will improve a woman's mental health. The WHPA would expand this by eliminating state laws limiting abortion. These would include parental notification laws, conscience protections for pro-life physicians, mandatory ultrasound laws, and informed consent laws.

National Right to Life President Carol Tobias said that the legislation is so far-reaching that calling it the "Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act" would be more accurate.

Catherine Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to oppose the WHPA. In her testimony, she said,

"The Women’s Health Protection Act would effectively ban all lifesaving, state protections for women considering abortion, and for our youngest preborn children, including those upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, for women considering abortion, for children before viability, and even for many late-term viable children.

These include protections for women and children from dangerous and painful late-term abortion, laws that prevent children from being eugenically aborted because they may have Down syndrome, and laws guaranteeing that children born alive during an abortion are provided basic medical care.

Informed consent standards, gone. Health and safety standards, gone."

At the age of 19, Foster was forced into an abortion by staff who physically held her down while she objected to the procedure.

“They took my money, my agency, my child, and an irreplaceable part of my health and well-being as a woman,” she said. “They gave me no information and no support, and they rushed me out the door. No doctor-patient relationship. No informed consent. No medical care. This is my story. And it’s the story of countless American women — past, present, and if this Congress succeeds, future.” 

Saline abortion survivor Melissa Ohden also testified in front of the committee. In her testimony, she challenged Senators to reconcile the rights of those who survive failed abortions with the harm caused to them by the WHPA.

“We’re citizens of this country who were denied their basic right to life,” Ohden said. “We’re members of a marginalized, unprotected population that continues to experience trauma, as abortion access is lauded as a right to be pursued. As our tax dollars go to fund the very act meant to end our lives, which has left deep emotional, mental, and — for many — physical scars. As our experiences and suffering are overlooked or played down as political fodder…. However, when we hear stories about abortion, the narrative is woefully one-sided. I’m here today to ask if there’s space in this abortion narrative for stories like mine, the men and women who are alive today after survived failed abortion procedures.”

If the WHPA is passed into law, it will have lasting consequences for abortion rights in pro-life and pro-abortion states across the country.

Click here to read more.

June 21, 2021

Texas Gov. Signs Trigger Law Banning Abortion if Roe v. Wade is Overturned

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R)
Last Thursday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a bill banning all abortions if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide, each state will have the ability to decide whether abortion is legal within its borders.

HB 1280, otherwise known as The Human Life Protection Act, would make Texas one of the first states to outlaw abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. That could happen soon, since the Supreme Court agreed last month that it will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortion at 15 weeks gestation.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Texas HB 1280 comes into effect 30 days later. All abortions in the state will become illegal to the extent that the new court ruling allows. The law does have exceptions for when a mother's life is at risk.

Click here to read more.