 |
| photo credit: Keith Ewing / Flickr |
You can visit our periodically updated legislation page by clicking here or going to ifrl.org and clicking "legislation" on the right-hand side.
The University of Pittsburgh project sought to "develop a pipeline to the acquisition, quality control and distribution of human genitourinary [urinary and genital organs and functions] samples obtained throughout development (6-42 weeks gestation)." Forty-two weeks is the same as ten months, which is a very late gestational stage.
Judicial Watch obtained documents showing Pitt's interest in harvesting fetal organs for a project called the GenitoUrinary Development Molecular Anatomy Project (GUDMAP).
Pitt came under fire earlier this year for another project that involved grafting scalps harvested from aborted babies and grafting them onto mice. Human hair began to grow from the bodies of these modified mice.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that Pitt was discussing plans to minimize warm ischemic time, or the amount of time that an organ retains its body temperature after losing blood flow. The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) argued on Tuesday that this, alongside the fact that the tissue was harvested after labor-induced abortions, suggests that these babies could be delivered alive.
"If the fetus’ heartbeat and blood circulation continue in a labor induction abortion for harvesting organs, it means the fetus is being delivered while still alive and the cause of death is the removal of the organs," the CMP wrote in a press release.
CMP founder David Daleiden said on Tuesday, "The NIH grant application for just one of Pitt’s numerous experiments with aborted infants reads like an episode of American Horror Story … People are outraged by such disregard for the lives of the vulnerable. Law enforcement and public officials should act immediately to bring the next Kermit Gosnell to justice under the law."
 |
| UK Supreme Court Building photo credit: Cary Bass-Deschenes / Flickr |
 |
| Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) Senate Sponsor of the EACH Act |
 |
| Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of the 26 pro-life senators co-authoring a letter to HHS Secretary Becerra |
 |
| Salvatore J. Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco |
“Let me repeat: no one can claim to be a devout Catholic and condone the killing of innocent human life, let alone have the government pay for it,” he told CNA. “The right to life is a fundamental -- the most fundamental -- human right, and Catholics do not oppose fundamental human rights.”
At a press conference on July 22, Pelosi said that she supported taxpayer funding of abortion because it is “an issue of health, of many women in America, especially those in lower-income situations and in different states.” She mentioned her faith during the conference as well, saying,
“as a devout Catholic and mother of five in six years, I feel that God blessed my husband and me with our beautiful family, five children in six years almost to the day, but... it’s not up to me to dictate that that’s what other people should do, and it [funding of abortion in Medicaid] is an issue of fairness and justice for poorer women in our country.”
Cordileone responded on Thursday,
“To use the smokescreen of abortion as an issue of health and fairness to poor women is the epitome of hypocrisy: what about the health of the baby being killed? What about giving poor women real choice, so they are supported in choosing life?
This would give them fairness and equality to women of means, who can afford to bring a child into the world. It is people of faith who run pro-life crisis pregnancy clinics; they are the only ones who provide poor women life-giving alternatives to having their babies killed in their wombs.”
 |
| Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) |
The Supreme Court will soon consider Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which involves the abortion lobby's challenge to Mississippi's near-total ban on abortions after 15 weeks. The lower courts have ruled that state abortion bans before viability are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will decide whether all bans on pre-viability elective abortions are unconstitutional.
National Right to Life and Louisiana Right to Life are asking the Court to make clear what the law actually is since rulings in the past have created confusion among lower courts.
Jomes Bopp, Jr., NRLC's General Counsel for the brief, said:
“Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has twisted the normal rules of law to protect an absolute abortion right and not given full effect to powerful state interests such as protecting preborn life and maternal health. Today, we ask the Court to reverse that tangential path, which will allow greater regulation of abortion, lead to stability in the law, and put Roe itself at issue.”
 |
| Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge |
The new WHO guidelines promote the self-administration of injectable contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion pills—including "in countries where abortion is illegal or restricted."
The WHO has long promoted abortion across the globe and interfered with the beliefs of pro-life countries. International aid from the WHO often includes tools and drugs used during abortions.
Writing for the pro-abortion organization Women First Digital, Lilian Muchoki said that the WHO guidelines are “based on a dream that abortion will be de-medicalized, the same way that contraception and other options are de-medicalized.”
Self-managed abortions can be dangerous not only to unborn children but also to their mothers. If the mother has an undiagnosed pregnancy condition, incorrectly dates her pregnancy, or doesn't correctly follow the process of the abortion-pill regimen (which is especially possible when a doctor is not involved), she is at increased risk of life-threatening complications such as hemorrhage.
 |
| Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch |
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is the abortion lobby's challenge to a Missippi law banning most elective abortions after 15 weeks. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this fall, and many pundits believe that this case could cause the Supreme Court to reconsider the standing precedent on abortion.
Fitch argued in her brief that the Roe and Casey decisions created “a special-rules regime for abortion jurisprudence that has left these cases out of step with other Court decisions and neutral principles of law applied by the Court.”
“As a result, state legislatures, and the people they represent, have lacked clarity in passing laws to protect legitimate public interests, and artificial guideposts have stunted important public debate on how we, as a society, care for the dignity of women and their children,” Fitch said.
“It is time for the Court to set this right and return this political debate to the political branches of government,” she wrote.
The Candidates Afforded Dignity, Equality and Training Act of 2021, or CADET Act, is written to amend policies that encourage pregnant women to abort their children. The current policy at military academies is that students can't have dependents. This leaves women who become pregnant with two options: either dropping out of school or aborting their children. If a woman drops out of school rather than choosing abortion, she will be forced to repay the government for the education she received, since she will not be able to serve in the military.
The CADET Act would allow women who get pregnant to take a year off from school to give birth and recover. They will then be allowed to return and graduate a year later than planned. While the woman finishes school, another person would be named as a temporary guardian for the child.
“Under our current system, cadets who become pregnant must either sign away the rights to their child, get an abortion, pay devastating financial responsibilities, or leave the academy altogether,” Cruz said in a press release, adding,
“I am proud to introduce this crucial legislation ensuring cadets in military academies can retain legal guardianship of their children without unnecessary burdens, and most importantly, keep young military families together. The CADET Act is a commonsense step to ensure the brave young women of our Armed Forces have the right level of support to continue their academy training and go on to fulfill their future service as commissioned officers while raising their family.”
 |
| U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker |
The Unborn Child Protection Act bans almost all abortions in the state, with an exception to save the life of the mother. When the law was passed, Senate sponsor Jason Rapert said that part of the law's intent was to directly challenge the Supreme Court precedent of Roe v. Wade.
In a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Rapert said, “Where is the conscience of the court? Judge Kristine Baker never fails to strike down pro-life laws in Arkansas. …She’s basing her decision on the same type of claptrap we always hear which ends up in the killing of unborn babies in our state and in the nation.”
The pro-abortion challengers to the law predictably include Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
|
| Texas Gov. Greg Abbott |
The Human Life Protection Act would take effect 30 days after Roe v. Wade is overturned or if a new court ruling allowed states to individually prohibit abortions. The law includes exceptions for cases when the mother's life is at risk or she is at risk of a “substantial impairment of major bodily function."
According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, Texas is the 12th state to pass a "trigger law" banning abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The other states are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.
The most precious freedom of all is life itself.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) July 20, 2021
Today I signed #HB1280. Under this law, the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned abortions will be outlawed in Texas.
Texas will always foster a culture of life.
Thanks to @AngelaPaxtonTX & @VoteGiovanni. pic.twitter.com/CgIjge0dHA
“Chemical abortions are the future the abortion issue is lobbying for, and I know that as a mother of five daughters, my girls and their peers are the most vulnerable to the chemical abortion industry. The abortion industry does not advocate for women, as they constantly claim to do. They exploit young women but leave them to deal with the consequences and severe potential side effects all on their own,” said Miller. “American taxpayers should not be forced by Democrats to fund the abortion providers in this country directly or indirectly. The Protecting Life on College Campus Act stands up for the many Americans who share a deeply held moral opposition to ending life in the womb.”
The bill was created in response to a new California law mandating that public universities make abortion pills available on their campuses. The law takes effect in 2023, and it will affect all 34 public universities in California.
The pro-life law introduced on Tuesday would require colleges to submit annual reports to the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services showing that they do not provide abortion drugs.
Titled, "America's Direct Deposit to Planned Parenthood," the analysis uses information from the Government Accountability Office and Planned Parenthood's annual reports to show how many taxpayer dollars have been funneled into Planned Parenthood organizations. Between 1994 and 2019, Planned Parenthood has reported performing 7,059,206 abortions and receiving $9.7 billion in total taxpayer funding. Over that period of time, the annual taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood has quadrupled from $163.1 million in 1994 to $618.1 million in 2019.
Over the period between 1994 and 2018, Planned Parenthood's share of the total abortions in the US has increased from 10.5% to 55.8%.
As the US House of Representatives considers a budget bill that doesn't include the protections of the Hyde Amendment, Planned Parenthood stands to gain even more funding from taxpayers.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said:
"Planned Parenthood has become America's abortion giant, and it has been taxpayer dollars that has bankrolled the baby-killing industry. Planned Parenthood now performs more abortions annually than every other abortion supplier in America. Far from escaping its racist, eugenicist roots, it increasingly targets minority babies by locating the vast majority of its abortion facilities near black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood does not deserve billions in government funding. Even pro-choice Americans have long agreed that taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortions. The time has come to put an end to the forced partnership between taxpayers and Planned Parenthood," concluded Perkins."
 |
| Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall |
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act into law in February, and pro-abortion groups filed a lawsuit against it the following day. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis placed an injunction blocking the law's enforcement soon afterward.
The law requires abortionists to provide ultrasounds for mothers before committing an abortion, and it bans abortionists from aborting a child whose heartbeat is detected during that ultrasound. Abortionists who violate the law could face felony charges, fines, and jail time. The law includes exceptions for medical emergencies, rape, incest, and fetal diagnoses.
South Carolina appealed the district court's injunction last week, arguing that the pro-abortion organizations lacked the legal standing to bring a lawsuit. South Carolina also argued that only the heartbeat provision (not the ultrasound requirements) should be blocked by the injunction, since that is the provision being challenged in court.
“South Carolina’s fetal heartbeat law was struck down in an error-filled district court opinion,” Marshall said in a press release. “Although Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs challenged only the law’s regulation of abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, the district court enjoined the law in its entirety — including portions of the law that dozens of other states already have and regularly enforce.”