Appeals Court Upholds Rights of Pro-Life Protestors

Last Thursday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that pro-life protestors had the right to peacefully protest outside an abortion business in Queens, New York. Thomas Moore Society lawyers represented ten members (including the pastor) of Brooklyn's Church@TheRock; refusing charges made by three consecutive attorneys general that the Christians had threatened and harassed women.

“This is a great win, to be sure,” declared Stephen Crampton, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel, “but the case should never have been brought in the first place. It was always about politics, not justice. The New York Attorney General has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money pursuing bogus claims and persecuting law-abiding Christians. The real crime here is not the actions of the defendants, but the actions of the Attorney General in ever filing this case.”

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi, and Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler handed down the unanimous opinion on August 26, 2021. They affirmed the ruling by US District Court Judge Carol Bagley Amon which denied the state's motion for a preliminary injunction against the pro-life advocates.

A panel of judges from the Second Circuit initially took a year and a half to make its ruling against the pro-life advocates on May 28, 2021. It's good to see that the District and Circuit Courts were much more timely in their decisions to defend the first amendment rights of pro-life protestors.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court to Hear Two Eugenic Abortion Cases Next Month

In September, the Supreme Court is set to hold hearings on several pro-life cases, including two cases that involve the legality of banning abortions based on Down syndrome or other disabilities.

These two cases are Schmitt v. Reproductive Health Services and Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services.

Schmitt v. Reproductive Health Services is a case regarding a Missouri law that bans abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy in addition to discriminatory abortions based exclusively on a Down syndrome diagnosis. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the law in June, but Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt is hoping that the Supreme Court will take a different stance.

In a press release, Schmitt outlined three questions he wanted the Supreme Court to answer in its opinion:

"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?"

Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services is another case involving a challenge to an Arkansas law that banned discriminatory abortions based on a baby's diagnosis with Down syndrome. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings blocking Arkansas's law in a press release of her own:

“In my personal experiences, I know individuals with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome, but they also have extra love to give and I will fight for these innocent individuals who are a gift from God,” she said. “The Constitution does not sanction killing an unborn child just because that child may have Down syndrome and I will not stand by and allow this practice to happen.”

Click here to read more.

Alaska Woman Denied Life-Sustaining Care for Refusing COVID Vaccine

Courtney Chavez was released as a patient from her primary medical provider for her refusal to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Unless she can find another specialist willing to take her as a patient for her multiple rare conditions, she will lose access to life-sustaining treatments and prescriptions.

Chavez is an Alaska stay-at-home mother of two who has multiple autoimmune diseases, a blood clotting disorder, and a bleeding disease. Every month, she drove to Alaska Internal Medicine and Pediatrics in Anchorage from Wasilla to receive treatment. On August 17, she was unable to receive treatment because she had been dropped as a patient.

Chavez received a letter from her doctor's office on August 11 informing her that they would no longer provide her with care. It reads, in part,

“Your physician Dr. O’Fallon also feels that if you are so opposed to the vaccine and not willing to heed her medical recommendations that this is not a healthy working relationship and has released you as her patient. She will provide you with 1 month (from the above date) supply of your prescription medications that you receive from her while you find another provider.”

So far, she has been unable to find another specialist who can treat her disorders.

Regarding her treatments, Chavez said, “It is the only reason I am alive today, because the disease almost killed me. This is the only medication that my body has responded to.”

Chavez said that she is not normally hesitant about vaccines, but she was worried that she might suffer severe side-effects from COVID shots due to her blood clotting disorder and other conditions.

“My doctor knows I’m not anti-vaccine, but I’ve had multiple different medications that I have had different reactions to from mild to life threatening,” Chavez said.

“I just want to wait and see what the long-term studies find,” she said. “For those of us who struggle with medicines, it’s scary, especially having been through some of the stuff I’ve been through.”

The denial of medical care based on an individual's vaccine status is an unethical practice in the same vein as death panels and euthanasia. If a patient needs medical treatment, doctors should be willing to provide them with that treatment. Refusal to do so can cause great suffering and deny a patient's basic right to life. 

Pro-life advocates need to watch this trend and keep medical professionals accountable.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Hospitalizes California Patient After Severe Hemorrhaging

A 29-year old woman being wheeled into an ambulance
from the Planned Parenthood clinic in Walnut Creek, CA
after an abortion caused life-threatening bleeding

Last month Operation Rescue documented the third medical emergency this year at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Walnut Creek, California. 911 records show that the 29-year old patient was sent to the hospital for uncontrolled hemorrhaging after she suffered uterine perforation during an abortion.

An employee at the clinic called 911 on July 23, 2021, and asked for an ambulance to transport the patient to the emergency room. According to dispatch records, the patient was transported under a P3-Urgent Priority code to a hospital.

Pro-life witnesses took a picture of the scene as emergency workers wheeled a covered stretcher into the back of an ambulance.

“Once again, Planned Parenthood has injured another woman during a bungled abortion, yet there appears to be no accountability for abortionists who work for Planned Parenthood,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

This is the sixth medical emergency Operation Rescue has recorded at the Walnut Creek Planned Parenthood. Of those, three have happened this year.

Click here to read more.

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.