Infamous Abortionist LeRoy Carhart Faces Malpractice Lawsuit

After one of his patients suffered massive blood loss, a perforated uterus, and traumatic appendix damage, infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart is facing a federal medical malpractice lawsuit.

Late-term abortionist LeRoy Harrison Carhart

Haimanot Aragaw filed the lawsuit against Carhart on July 12, 2021. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the injuries Aragaw suffered during an abortion at one of Carhart's abortion facilities in Bellevue, Nebraska on May 21, 2020.

The story begins when six months into her pregnancy, Aragaw's unborn child was diagnosed with Down syndrome. As a result, she sought an abortion. While the fact that a mother would seek to have her child killed purely because the baby was diagnosed with a disability is heartbreaking, the story gets worse.

LeRoy Carhart and his associate, Anh-Chi Dang Do, attempted to abort Aragaw's baby with a suction procedure. This is not normal for a child who has developed for six months. Suction abortions are normally reserved for the first trimester, and abortionists instead choose to use the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure if the baby has developed into the second trimester. D&E procedures involve dismembering a child and removing each individual limb from the mother's womb until the abortion is complete. This is because the child has grown too large to be removed via suction. Attempting a suction abortion during the second trimester is both ineffective and dangerous for the mother. Aragaw unfortunately learned this first-hand.

When the suction abortion failed, Aragaw starting bleeding profusely. The abortionists, unable to control the bleeding, called an ambulance. Aragaw was transported to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital in Rockville, Maryland. Doctors there found that her uterus had been sliced open, and her baby's body had been shoved into her abdominal cavity behind the uterus. The baby was missing both arms and part of their right leg. Aragaw received a full hysterectomy to save her life, and she also suffered a traumatic injury to her appendix.

Click here to read more.

South Dakota to Appeal Decision Blocking Counseling Requirement Before Abortions

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)

In 2011, South Dakota passed HB 1217. The law had several pro-life provisions, including a requirement that pregnant women consult with a pregnancy help center before deciding whether to abort their children. That requirement was blocked by Clinton-appointed Judge Karen Schreier in June 2011, while other provisions did go into effect. Last Friday, Judge Schreier refused to dissolve that injuction, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem quickly responded by announcing her plan to appeal Judge Schreier's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“All life is precious. Mothers should have the opportunity to hear all relevant information before they are faced with the ‘choice’ of whether to end their unborn child’s life,” said Gov. Noem. “I look forward to the day when all life – born and unborn – is protected by law. Given that the US Supreme Court will soon decide on the constitutionality of prohibiting abortion before ‘viability,’ we are asking the 8th Circuit to recognize that the people’s legislators should have the ability to pass pro-life laws.”

She added, “Today’s decision by the District Court [Judge Schreier] refused to dissolve the injunction, so the law passed by the people’s representatives is suspended until a final court decision is rendered. In doing so, the Court rejected the will of the people when it comes to protecting unborn life.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Legislators Push FDA to Permanently Lift Abortion Pill Safety Requirements

House Oversight Committee Chairwoman
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

After using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to "temporarily" loosen safety requirements for the distribution of abortion pills, pro-abortion advocates are pushing the FDA to make those changes permanent.

Now, a resolution by pro-abortion legislators is echoing that sentiment. On August 19, pro-abortion members of the House Oversight Committee announced its push to roll back REMS protections permanently.

House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) said, “It’s time that we trust the science and ensure access to safe, legal abortion, particularly for communities where abortion care has been historically pushed out of reach. I plan to continue this fight until everyone can freely exercise their right to access abortion — including medication abortion.”

Before the pandemic, the FDA had applied its REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) protocol to the distribution of abortion pills. REMS protocol required the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol to be dispensed in-person by a licensed physician, so that they could take actions to ensure that the pills did not put the mother's life at risk. If the mother incorrectly dated her pregnancy or had an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, taking the abortion pill regimen could pose serious health risks, including hemorrhage and death.

Physicians can ensure that pregnancies are dated correctly and identify ectopic pregnancies. Doing so reduces the chance that a woman whose life would be endangered by the abortion pill regimen will choose it as their method of abortion.

During the pandemic, the FDA has waived the in-person requirement for abortion pill distribution. Instead, the FDA thought it would be more important to slow the spread of COVID-19 by allowing women to simply receive abortion pills over the mail. This also put more women in danger of the health risks posed by the abortion pill.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Upholds Texas Dismemberment Abortion Ban

Last Wednesday, the pro-life movement won a major victory at 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The court reversed a lower court decision and upheld a Texas law that prohibits dismemberment abortions.

Dismemberment abortions, also called dilation and evacuation abortions, are commonly done during the second trimester. The abortion procedure involves the use of forceps to reach into a woman's womb and tear an unborn baby's limbs from its body piece by piece. After the limbs and torso are removed, the abortionist will use forceps to crush the baby's skull. The abortion is complete when the abortionist uses metal instruments to scrape out all the remaining pieces of the baby's body. In this gruesome procedure, the baby dies from bleeding out.

Supreme Court precedent makes it difficult for pro-life laws regulating abortion to survive legal challenges. The 5th Circuit's ruling in this case is a strong step in the right direction.

Texas SB8 specifically prohibits doctors from using forceps to dismember a living fetus. This means that abortionists who perform dismemberment abortions will first need to kill the child through another method, such as a digoxin injection, before tearing the baby apart. While it doesn't ban abortion outright, it is a step towards treating unborn babies more humanely. As steps like this continue, the pro-life movement gets closer to ending abortion.

Texas already bans abortions past 22 weeks gestation.

Click here to read more.

Senator Corrects VA Secretary on Abortion "Regulation"

U.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough

As part of a debate regarding whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) should fund abortions, VA Secretary Denis McDonough called a ban on VA funding of abortions a "policy decision" and a "regulatory matter." This implied that the VA could take internal action to reverse the abortion prohibition and begin funding abortions with taxpayer dollars. U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas criticized McDonough's testimony in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week, making it clear that the prohibition on abortion funding is not simply a "policy decision," it is federal law. it is federal law.

Sen. Moran said, “I want to draw attention to a letter I received from Secretary McDonough last week describing VA’s prohibition on abortion services as a ‘policy decision.’ The letter follows the Secretary’s testimony in March where he described VA-provided abortion services as a ‘regulatory matter.’ What is troubling about these statements is that VA’s prohibition on abortion services is more than a policy decision or regulatory matter, it’s the law.”

Sen. Moran explained that Congress passed the Veterans Healthcare Act in 1992. That law specifically prohibits the VA from offering abortion. He also noted that until 2021, that the VA website was updated this year to reflect the same language used by McDonough in his testimony. It used to read that the VA "cannot, by lay, provide abortion services." In 2021, it was updated to read, "under current regulation, VA does not provide abortion or abortion counseling.

Moran concluded by saying that the VA “has not acted or indicated that it will act on changing its long-standing policy to follow the law as written in regard to abortion... That said, it is necessary to defend life by ensuring that VA or any federal agency does not fund or perform abortions. I expect the Department to continue to follow the law and protect unborn children.”

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Challenges Pro-Life Montana Laws

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana over four pro-life laws passed by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte in 2021.

The four laws being challenge include the following:

• a law banning abortion after 20 weeks gestation

• a requirement that a woman be given the option to view an ultrasound of her child before an abortion

• a law requiring informed consent for abortions involving the abortion pill regimen and blocking the distribution of abortion pills through the mail

• a law prohibiting health insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act's federal exchanges in Montana from paying for abortions

The laws are set to take effect on October 1, but the court could agree to block their enforcement while it considers Planned Parenthood's lawsuit.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Groups Sue Arizona Over Pro-Life Legislation

Arizona Gov. Doug Gucey

Pro-abortion groups have filed suit against the state of Arizona over a new law that, among other things, bans abortionists from aborting an unborn child purely because they were diagnosed with a genetic anomaly such as Down syndrome.

Arizona Gov. Doug Gucey (R) signed SB1457 into law on April 27, 2021. Now, a lawsuit by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona threaten the state's ability to enforce its pro-life protections.

The abortion advocates are seeking a “preliminary injunction before the measures take effect on September 29, 2021,” according to the CRR.

In addition to protecting unborn children with genetic anomalies, the law also prohibits abortion pills from being sent through the mail, bans state taxpayer dollars from funding organizations that offer abortion, and requires abortion businesses to bury or cremate the remains of aborted babies. The law further declares that Arizona laws recognize unborn children as having “all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state.”

The pro-abortion prosecution challenges two of those provisions. It challenges the section of the law that protects children with genetic anomalies from discriminatory abortions, and it challenges the declaration that unborn children have the rights of any other Arizona citizen or resident.

Click here to read more.

Patient Recovers After Texas Hospital Invokes Controversial 10-Day Rule

Jose Cobos-Portillo

In September 2020, Jose Cobos-Portillo came to the U.S. from Mexico on a work visa. In the same month that he arrived, he caught a severe case of COVID-19 and was admitted to Northwest Texas Healthcare in Amarillo to receive care. In the two months that he stayed at the hospital, his life was threatened not only by COVID-19, but also by a hospital threatening to withdraw life-saving medical care.

Northwest Texas Healthcare had invoked the state's controversial 10-day rule, which would allow the hospital to remove life-sustaining care from Cobos-Portillo in 10 days if his family could not find another hospital willing to take him as a patient.

Cobos-Portillo spent much of his time in the hospital under a medically-induced coma. His family was not allowed to visit him because he was in the COVID wing, and they could not speak English proficiently enough to find another hospital to take Cobos-Portillo.

“A doctor started to get arrogant with me; he told me that he wasn’t asking for my permission,” said Arturo, Cobos-Portillo's brother. “He told me that he was going to go to a committee and that they were going to disconnect Jose… The doctor told me that Jose had run out of options and that he only had one week left. So he was going to go to the committee and we would have to disconnect him. One of them claimed that I accepted that they would disconnect him; we never wanted that. It was so difficult for us, we were here in Mexico, and he was alone in the U.S., hospitalized in Amarillo. There wasn’t anything that we could do and it was so difficult, the whole family was suffering with that uncertainty.”

Arturo was his brother's medical decision-maker while his brother was in a coma. He tried to advocate for his brother's life in phone calls and ethics committee meetings, but he was limited by the language barrier. The hospital provided no interpreters to assist him during the process.

After Cobos-Portillo's family received legal help from Texas Right to Life, Northwest Texas Healthcare granted him an indefinite amount of time to recover. He stayed in the hospital for three more months after it had attempted to invoke the 10-day rule, after which he successfully recovered. With the help of physical therapy and oxygen, he was able to return to his family.

“[M]y brother Arturo met a very good lady named Katherine Pitcher who talked with the hospital and told them that if they wanted to disconnect me, they would face consequences. I had already had eye movements and responses at this time,” said Cobos-Portillo.

Click here to read more.

Federal Judge Blocks HHS Mandate that Pro-Life Doctors Participate in Abortions

A federal court blocked an attempt by the Biden administration to resurrect an Obama era mandate that pro-life doctors participate in abortions as instructed by their employers. The mandate was similarly blocked by courts when the Obama administration attempted to impose it, but it's a relief to know that it won't be enforced this time either.

On Aug. 9, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a permanent injunction against the HHS mandate on the grounds that it violated the conscience protections of health care professionals. Judge Reed ruled in Franciscan Alliance, Inc. et al. v. Xavier Becerra that the HHS mandate would cause "irreparable harm" to religious liberty protections.

If the HHS was allowed to enforce the rule, pro-life doctors could face fines and other penalties.

“Here, Christian Plaintiffs contend that violation of their statutory rights under RFRA is an irreparable harm,” Judge Reed's ruling states. “The Court agrees and concludes that enforcement of the 2021 Interpretation forces Christian Plaintiffs to face civil penalties or to perform gender-transition procedures and abortions contrary to their religious beliefs—a quintessential irreparable injury.”

The ruling goes on to say that Becerra will be prohibited “from interpreting or enforcing” the law “in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures or abortions, including by denying Federal financial assistance because of their failure to perform or provide insurance coverage for such procedures or by otherwise pursuing, charging, or assessing any penalties, fines, assessments, investigations, or other enforcement actions.”

Click here to read more.

Granite City Abortion Clinic Hospitalized at Least 3 Patients Since March

A woman about to be transferred to a St. Louis Hospital
on June 16, 2021, after suffering complications from a
second-trimester abortion at Hope Clinic for Women

Reports from pro-life bystanders have confirmed that Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois has hospitalized at least three women since March of this year.

On March 20, 2021 video recorded by a pro-life bystander showed a woman in a gurney being carted into out of Hope Clinic and into an ambulance. Notably, the ambulance did not simply go across the street to Gateway Regional Medical Center. According to Operation Rescue, which records evidence of patients being hospitalized after visiting abortion clinics, that hospital is rarely used by the clinic. Instead, most of the hospitalized patients are sent to Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri.

Another woman was hospitalized at Hope Clinic on June 16, 2021. This woman was carted into an ambulance after suffering complications from a two-day abortion procedure. This ambulance similarly did not go to the hospital across the street from the Hope Clinic.

The two-day dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involves inserting a seaweed called laminaria into a woman's cervix, where it will dilate over the course of 24 hours. The woman then returns to the abortion clinic, and an abortionist uses the dilated opening to reach into the mother's womb with metal instruments designed to tear the baby apart limb from limb. This method can put the mother at risk of hemorrhage or infection. The abortionist could damage her womb with the metal instruments while trying to tear the baby's body apart, and body parts could be left in the mother's womb after the abortion is complete.

The third hospitalization at Hope Clinic occurred only a month ago on July 22, 2021. As this woman was being loaded into an ambulance on a gurney, she waived to pro-life onlookers who offered to pray for her. Two women were recorded entering the clinic while this happened.

Abortion is dangerous. Not only does it end the lives of innocent babies, but it also poses significant risks to the women who choose it. For patients at Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, this is especially true.

Click here to read more.

84 Lawmakers Accuse Biden Admin. of Pro-Abortion Favoritism in Conscience Rights Enforcement

84 members of Congress signed a letter to Biden administration officials stating that they violated federal law by instructing the Department of Justice to stop pursuing legal action against a hospital accused of coercing a nurse into participating in an abortion against her will. The legislators demanded that the administration share its reasoning for the decision and suggested that pro-abortion favoritism is causing them to discriminate against pro-life doctors.

Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra instructed the DOJ to drop its lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center. The lawsuit was initiated by the Trump administration in 2019

The letter, signed by 21 senators and 63 representatives, reads in part:

“Your handling of this case is a profound miscarriage of justice and a rejection of your commitment to enforce federal conscience laws for Americans of all religious beliefs and creeds — and especially for doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who object to abortion Your actions signal to employers all around the country that they don’t need to comply with the law because your agencies will not enforce it. They also signal that this administration would rather allow consciences to be violated at the behest of the abortion lobby rather [than] enforce the law and protect religious liberty.”

Click here to read more.

Indiana AG Asks 7th Circuit to Hear Appeal of Pro-Life Laws

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita

After last week's decision by District Court Judge Sarah Evans Baker to place a permanent injunction against the enforcement of six Indiana pro-life regulations, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Barker did uphold some pro-life provisions, including a requirement that women seeking abortions first undergo ultrasounds and a requirement that abortions involving the abortion pill regimen meet FDA standards.

Indiana Right to Life wrote,

"Under the injunction, Indiana is blocked from enforcing physician-only limitations on chemical abortions, Indiana’s ban on chemical abortions via telemedicine, Indiana’s requirement that second trimester abortions can only be done in hospitals, Indiana’s requirement that women be informed about an unborn baby’s ability to feel pain at 20 weeks, Indiana’s requirement that women be informed that human physical life begins at fertilization, and multiple physical requirements for facilities that do abortions."

Rokita is asking the Seventh Circuit to hear the case so that it might be overturned, but he is also requesting the court to place a stay on the lower court's injunction. This would allow Indiana to enforce the laws until the Appeals Court makes its decision.

Click here to read more.

Indiana Judge Strikes Down Multiple Pro-Life Laws

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker made a sweeping ruling to strike down several abortion restrictions.

Under Judge Barker's ruling, the state will not be allowed to enforce the following pro-life regulations:

• a restriction preventing abortionists from distributing abortion pills via telemedicine
• a requirement that women visit a physician in-person before they have a chemical abortion
• a requirement that second-trimester surgical abortions occur in hospitals or surgical centers
• a requirement that women seeking abortion are informed that preborn children can feel pain at 20 weeks
• a requirement that women seeking abortion are informed that life begins at fertilization

Barker also upheld several other pro-life laws. These include parental consent laws, abortion reporting laws, and a requirement that women have ultrasounds before they have abortions.

“This is a horrific ruling that will directly lead to a massive expansion of chemical and late-term abortions in Indiana,” said Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter in a statement. “The sweeping blockage of these common-sense laws jeopardizes the health and safety of women, leaves women in the dark on issues of fetal pain and the development of human life, and places communities like Fort Wayne and Evansville clearly in the crosshairs for abortion business expansion. This is judicial activism at its absolute worst.”

Click here to read more.

Senate Passes Budget Resolution Supporting Hyde and Weldon Language

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 50-49 in support of a 2022 fiscal year budget resolution. That resolution included an amendment introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) in support of Hyde Amendment Language.

The "Lankford Amendment" was accepted in a mostly party-line vote. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the only Democrat who joined Republicans in support of the pro-life amendment.

The Lankford amendment would prohibit federal funding from funding abortions, mirroring the effect of the Hyde Amendment. It would also protect the conscience rights of medical facilities by adding Weldon Amendment language to the budget. The Weldon Amendment prohibits federal funds from going to states that discriminate against health care entities that refuse to pay for or provide coverage for abortions.

“We thank the pro-life champions in the Senate for their tireless work to protect unborn children and their mothers,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Senate Democrats are targeting the longstanding popular Hyde Amendment at every turn. The goal is to ensure abortion on demand at any time and for any reason. Taxpayer funding of abortion is a top priority of pro-abortion groups and their allies in the Senate.”

Until this year, the Hyde Amendment was a bipartisan addition to every spending bill for 45 years. Pro-life advocates argue that it has saved over two million American lives since 1976.

The House of Representatives would need to agree to the budget resolution before it can move forward during the reconciliation process.

Click here to read more.

Doctors say University of Pittsburgh Statements Suggest Organ Harvesting from Live Babies

According to several doctors, including a "pro-choice" doctor who spoke with Fox News, statements from the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) indicate that one of its federally funded research projects used organs that might have been extracted from "live fetuses."

Dr. Ronna Jurow, a self-described "pro-choice" ob-gyn who used to work for Planned Parenthood, told Fox News last Thursday that "there's no question" the fetus would be alive during tissue collection. She based her comments on what Pitt told the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the comments that David Seldin, the university's assistant vice chancellor for news, told Fox.

Documents uncovered by Judicial Watch last week show Pitt 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)." According to the NIH, 40 weeks is considered full term.

The documents further revealed that Pitt sought to minimize "ischemia time … to ensure the highest quality biological specimens."

Seldin told Fox News that ischemia is a "[l]ack of blood supply to a part of the body. In this case, ischemia time refers to the time after the tissue collection procedure and before cooling for storage and transport. It does not have an impact on how the procedure is performed, which is always at the discretion of the attending physician and determined with the patient’s health as the top priority."

Pro-life journalist David Daleiden quickly responded to Seldin's statement on Twitter, saying that "[i]f ischemia starts when the organ is cut off from blood, and that happens AFTER the ‘collection’—that means there's bloodflow DURING ‘collection.'" Him and many other pro-lifers are concerned that the research conducted by Pitt required late-term babies to be delivered alive or killed immediately before delivery.

Click here to read more.

Legal Group Criticizes DOJ for Dropping Conscience Rights Lawsuit

The American Center for Law and Justice joined pro-life members of Congress this week in criticizing the Department of Justice for dropping a conscience rights lawsuit against a Vermont Hospital.

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center in December 2020 after a pro-life nurse was allegedly coerced into helping with a 2017 abortion, despite her conscientious objection. At the time, the DOJ alleged that the hospital displayed a "pattern" of discrimination against employees who refused to perform abortions for religious or moral reasons.

On July 30, 2020, the DOJ reversed course by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal in a federal district court.

“It’s plainly political in nature,” said Matthew Clark, senior counsel for digital advocacy at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) in an interview with CNA. The ACLJ represented the Vermont nurse before the DOJ took up the case. “This has now become an assault on those who are pro-life,” Clark continued.

The nurse who was allegedly coerced into performing an abortion said that in 2017, she was told she would be helping with a miscarriage. When she arrived for the procedure, the doctor told her "Don't hate me," before saying that she would be helping with an abortion. When she stated her objection, the doctor denied her request to be replaced.

“It was a surprise. The nurse was on a list of people who had a conscience objection to abortion, so they [the hospital] knew, the head doctor knew, everybody knew, and could have easily switched somebody out,” Clark told CNA.

“Clearly, it was a discrimination,” Clark said of the nurse allegedly being told to participate in the abortion. “Your boss tells you ‘do x,’ and you say, ‘I have an objection to x, can I not do it?’ And they say ‘no, you have to do x.’ The natural implication of that is that there’s going to be something that follows.”

“This isn’t about abortion access,” he said of the incident. “This is actually about taking away the rights of pro-lifers. There was somebody else who could have stepped in, so this goes beyond being pro-abortion. This is anti-life.”

Click here to read more.

Louisiana Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Parental Consent Law

Louisiana 19th Judicial District Court
Judge Timothy Kelley

Louisiana recently passed a law strengthening its parental consent requirements for young girls seeking abortion. In response, the abortion lobby predictably filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Last Thursday, however, District Judge Timothy Kelley dismissed the case.

Much like Illinois's parental notification requirements, minors in Louisiana have the ability to obtain a judicial bypass to have an abortion without parental consent. As a result, abortion businesses around the country found ways to obtain judicial bypasses for minors. These businesses often "shop" for pro-abortion judges who will sign the necessary paperwork to grant a judicial bypass. Louisiana lawmakers were aware of this, so they passed a law that requires a court that grants a judicial bypass to have jurisdiction within the minor's parish of residence (with some exceptions).

“Once again, the abortion industry ran to the shelter of a court to cling to its mission of abortion-on-demand, this time seeking to defend abortion for minors without any barriers or parental involvement,” said Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life.  “Judge Kelley rightly dismissed this ridiculous lawsuit and told the abortion businesses they can return to court once they actually have a real plaintiff.”

Angie Thomas, J.D., Associate Director of Louisiana Right to Life, echoed Clapper's sentiment: “We also applaud Judge Kelley for dismissing the case for lack of standing. For years, the abortion industry has challenged the laws that were meant to protect women from that same industry without representing any actual patients. Judge Kelley’s decision hopefully puts a stop to this inappropriate legal tool the abortion industry consistently uses to strike at the will of the people of Louisiana.”

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Upholds Tennessee Waiting Period Law

Last Thursday, the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Tennessee law requiring women to wait 48 hours between the time they first visit an abortion clinic and when they have an abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of Tennessee abortion businesses. According to the court's majority opinion, they could not identify women who were harmed by having to wait 48 hours before they could get an abortion.

“None of the plaintiffs’ witnesses could name specific women who could not get an abortion because the waiting period pushed them past the cutoff date,” Judge Amul Thapar wrote for the majority in Bristol Regional Women’s Center v. Slatery. “None of the witnesses could identify specific women whose medical conditions caused complications or psychological harm during the waiting period.”

Uniquely, this waiting period law was in effect for five years before District Judge Bernard A. Friedman allowed the lawsuit to be resurrected. It was enforced from 2015 until Oct. 2020, which meant that both sides could use data collected during that period to argue their points in court. The appellate court noted that between 2015 and 2020, abortion rates remained steady.

“It is one thing to predict that the sky will fall tomorrow,” the ruling states. “It’s quite another thing to maintain that the sky fell five years ago for women seeking abortions when the numbers tell us otherwise.”

Click here to read more.

European Court of Human Rights Rules that Life Support can be Removed from UK 2-Year-Old

Alta Fixler with her family

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights declined to intervene to save the life of a child whose life support is in jeopardy. Despite the wishes of two-year-old Alta Fixler's parents, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital refuses to transfer her to another hospital.

The court's decision means that the UK hospital could choose to remove Fixler's life support very soon.

Fixler's parents are Hasidic Jews who strongly object to the hospital's decision because of their beliefs. They believe in the sanctity of human life, and they hope that the hospital will change its mind and allow them to transfer their daughter to one of several facilities that have expressed willingness to provide treatment for their daughter.

Both parents have Israeli citizenship, and Fixler's father has US citizenship as well. Because of this, hospitals and politicians from both countries have reached out to save Alta's life. The US government has approved a non-immigrant visa that would allow Fixler to travel to the US for treatment.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Upholds Indiana Abortion Complications Reporting Law

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an Indiana law last week mandating requiring medical professionals to report complications from abortion procedures to the state. This decision reversed a District Court decision that had originally blocked the law.

The District Court ruled to block the law, saying that it was "unconstitutionally vague." The three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals disagreed with this assessment. Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve wrote, “… Planned Parenthood has not shown that the law is unconstitutionally vague on its face in this pre-enforcement challenge.”

The Indiana law, titled Act No. 340, was signed into law in 2018. It requires medical professionals to report 26 types of abortion complications uterine perforation, cervical perforation, failed abortion, hemorrhaging, infection, shock, cardiac arrest, psychological effects, or preterm labor. A medical professional who fails to do this could be found guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison and $1,000 in fines.

“Complications from abortion have been notoriously difficult to track,” said Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, “resulting in a skewed understanding of the danger abortion poses to women.” Rokita called the ruling “a huge win for the safety of women” and vowed to continue to “fight tirelessly for the rights of the unborn.”

Click here to read more.