Featured Post

ALERT: CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS TO PROTECT PARENTAL NOTICE

Please call your State Representative and State Senator and tell them to vote against legislation repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion ...

September 10, 2021

Biden Administration Sues Texas over Heartbeat Law

Attorney General Merrick Garland
On Thursday, the Biden administration announced its lawsuit against the state of Texas over its new law banning most abortions on unborn children with detectable heartbeats.

The Justice Department's complaint filed in a Texas federal district court argues that Texas acted “in open defiance of the Constitution” in restricting “most pre-viability abortions.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland further argued in favor of the filing. “The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Garland said. “The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights.”

The Justice Department's lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against state officials and “private parties who would bring suit under the law, from implementing or enforcing” the law.

This is the latest pro-abortion effort to block the democratically passed law. So far, the Texas Heartbeat Act has survived court challenges. The Supreme Court gave a 5-4 decision last week not to grant a temporary injunction against the Heartbeat Act's enforcement while the case goes through the lower courts. The Justice Department's case may provide another avenue for pro-abortion advocates to block the law's enforcement.

September 9, 2021

Website Hosting Service GoDaddy Deplatforms Texas Right to Life Whistleblower Site

Last week, website hosting service GoDaddy brought down Texas Right to Life's website designed to help Texans report violations of the new Texas Heartbeat Act. GoDaddy had originally hosted the website, but complaints from pro-abortion groups caused the company to refuse its service to Texas Right to Life.

Texas Right to Life responded in a press release,

"Pro-abortion advocates tried for over a week to overwhelm the website with traffic and fake tips. When they failed, keyboard warriors harassed GoDaddy to take down our site."

Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz wrote,

“We will not be silenced. If anti-Lifers want to take our website down, we’ll put it back up. No one can keep us from telling the truth. No one can stop us from saving lives. We are not afraid of the mob. Anti-Life activists hate us because we’re winning. Hundreds of babies are being saved from abortion right now because of Texas Right to Life, and these attacks don’t change that.”

At the time of writing, the website has not yet been reactivated with another hosting service. Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham told Fox Business that the group was in contact with several hosting services friendly to the pro-life cause, however. She anticipates that other pro-life groups will soon be switching hosts for their own websites, as well. “We’re just glad that they canceled,” Graham said, “because we were able to out them as siding with the abortion crowd, and what’s even better is that we don’t want the abortion affiliated platform hosting a pro-life website.”

South Dakota Gov. Signs Executive Order Banning Telemedicine Abortions

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)
On Sept. 7, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed an executive order preventing doctors from using telemedicine to prescribe abortion pills. Instead, doctors in South Dakota will need to see women in person to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol.

Before April 2021, the FDA required that women throughout the United States see doctors in person before being receiving prescriptions for the abortion pill regimen. The FDA "temporarily" lifted those requirements due to the pandemic, but pro-life advocates seem to be correct in doubting the Biden administration's intentions. The FDA has already announced plans to consider making permanent changes to how abortion drugs are prescribed. Those changes are expected to go into effect on November 1, 2021.

The FDA restrictions protected women by allowing doctors to confirm the gestational age of pregnancies and properly diagnose conditions such as ectopic pregnancy. If the unborn child's gestational age is older than the mother's guess, or if she has an ectopic pregnancy, going through with the abortion pill regimen can pose significant and deadly risks to the mother as well as her child.

The executive order demands that the South Dakota Department of Health adopt emergency rules including:
  • a requirement that physicians examine a pregnant mother in person before prescribing abortion pills
  • banning the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs via courier, delivery, telemedicine, or mail service
  • banning the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs in schools
  • requiring "pill only" clinics to obtain licenses in accordance with South Dakota's surgical abortion clinic licensing requirements
  • a requirement that the South Dakota Department of Health collects data on the frequency, complication rate, location, and sex trafficking context of the abortion pill

September 8, 2021

More States Announce Plans to Pass Texas-Style Heartbeat Laws

After seeing that Texas's new Heartbeat Act successfully passed and is now being enforced, other states have announced plans to enact similar legislation and save more unborn lives.

While the Texas Heartbeat Act has not yet made its way through all possible legal channels and may find itself in front of the Supreme Court once again, several states have taken note of the law's success so far. As a result, they have announced plans to draft similar bills to prevent unborn babies in other states from facing abortion.

According to PregnancyHelpNews.com, a subsidiary of Heartbeat International, pro-life lawmakers in Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota had all announced intentions to pass laws similar to the Texas Heartbeat Act.
  • Arkansas State Sen. Jason Rapert ordered a bill be filed in his state "to mirror the Texas SB8 bill."
  • Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson said that the Florida legislature is “already working” on a heartbeat act like the Texas one.
  • Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel said that he would "absolutely" consider filing legislation to match Texas SB8.
  • North Dakota Sen. Janne Myrdal confirmed that legislators in her state are discussing using the Texas Heartbeat Act a template for new legislation in their own state.
  • South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, whom some speculate might run for president in the 2024 election cycle, said that she directed her Unborn Child Advocate “to immediately review the new TX law and current South Dakota laws” and make sure South Dakota has the “strongest pro-life laws on the books.”

Biden Flops on Belief that Life Begins at Conception

photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Contradicting his own past statements, President Biden went on record last week stating that he does not believe life begins at conception.

During a press conference, a reporter asked him how he planned to respond to the new Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after an unborn child's heartbeat is detectable. As part of his response, Biden told reporters that he did not believe life begins at conception.

“I respect people who don’t support Roe v. Wade, I respect their views,” Biden said. “I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all — I respect that, don’t agree, but I respect that. I’m not gonna impose that on people.”


It's a scientific fact that a unique human being with DNA that is different from both parents is formed during conception. The idea that life begins at conception is also a part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Biden statement disputed these and his own past statements on whether life begins at conception.

In a 2008 interview with the National Catholic Register, Biden said he was “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”

He also involved this belief in his vice presidential debate against Rep. Paul Ryan. “Life begins at conception, that‘s the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.”

Biden reiterated this belief as recently as 2015 during an interview with America Magazine. In that interview, he said, “I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.”

September 7, 2021

Chicago Woman Rescues Abandoned Newborn Found in Trash

Screenshot from WGN News Video
Last month, a Chicago woman found a newborn baby amongst trash while she was looking for recyclable materials. When she opened the drawers of a dresser, she found the newborn baby boy with his umbilical cord still attached. Waste removal services would have taken the baby away with the trash that same day had the anonymous woman not searched the drawers.

The woman held the child until paramedics arrived.

Matthew Lang, one of the firefighters who responded to the emergency, told CBS 2, “I look out the window, and I just see this woman, hysterical, waving her arms.” He had expected the worst, but what he saw was reassuring. “We don’t know who put the baby there, but whoever did left a rosary. My mind went to ease as soon as I saw that baby moving and crying. It was almost surreal.”

Emergency responders took the baby to Lurie Children's Hospital for treatment. Lang went to Facebook to urge parents who feel like they can't take care of their babies to surrender babies to safe havens rather than leave them in the trash.

In Illinois, parents can safely and anonymously surrender newborns 30 days old or younger to any hospital, police station, fire station, or hospital. There will be no legal repercussions to the parents, and the child's life will not be endangered.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Pro-Lifers over Heartbeat Act

On Thursday, Sept. 2, the day after the Texas Heartbeat Act was allowed to go into effect, Planned Parenthood affiliates filed a lawsuit against Texas Right to Life, its Legislative Director John Seago, and 100 unnamed individuals. This is in an attempt to stop pro-lifers from filing lawsuits against Planned Parenthood affiliates under the new law, which bans abortions after an unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable. On Friday, Sept. 3, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted a temporary restraining order in Planned Parenthood's favor.

The judge ruled that the new threat of private lawsuits under the Texas Heartbeat Act creates "probable, irreparable, and imminent injury in the interim for which [Planned Parenthood] and their physicians, staff, and patients throughout Texas have no adequate remedy at law." Judge Gamble added that her ruling upholds Texas Supreme Court precedent, which holds that “the primary consideration for temporary emergency relief is preserving the status quo while courts consider whether plaintiffs have demonstrated a probable right to the relief sought.”

Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham responded in a statement,
“This lawsuit will not stop the work of Texas Right to Life. Estimates are that approximately 150 babies per day are being saved because of Texas Right to Life’s leadership on the Texas Heartbeat Act. Planned Parenthood can keep suing us, but Texas Right to Life will never back down from protecting pregnant women and preborn children from abortion.”

September 3, 2021

Biden Announces "whole-of-government effort" to Undermine Texas Heartbeat Act

US President Joe Biden (D)
Thursday morning, in response to the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene in the legal challenge to a new Texas law banning the abortion of babies with detectable heartbeats, President Biden announced a "whole-of-government" response to ensure Texas women can still have abortions.

In a Tweet, Biden wrote,
"I am launching a whole-of-government effort to respond to this decision -- looking specifically to HHS and DOJ to see what steps the federal government can take to insulate those in Texas from this law and ensure access to safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe."

In a separate statement, Biden said that he was directing his White House Gender Policy Council and the White House counsel to review “what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas' bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties.”

It is unclear what action Biden plans to take to negate the effects of the legally passed Texas Heartbeat Act.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Chooses Not to Intervene in Texas Heartbeat Law Case

Late Wednesday evening, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to deny a petition by abortion businesses to have Texas's newly enforceable heartbeat law temporarily blocked while lower courts deliberate its constitutionality.

“Hopefully, this law will begin saving the lives of tens of thousands of Texas babies, and we look forward to the day that babies’ lives will be spared across America,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRLC).

Texas's new "Heartbeat Act" bans the abortion of babies once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks gestation. It is unique from other abortion bans in that it is enforced by giving private citizens the power to file lawsuits against those who commit illegal abortions.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all ruled to deny the petitions of abortion businesses. Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, all dissented.

The majority ruled that the abortion businesses did not make a sufficient argument to qualify for relief from the law's enforcement right now.

“The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden,” the majority stated.

The majority emphasized that its decision was not a ruling on the Heartbeat Act's constitutionality, and it could very well rule on this case after it passes through the lower courts.

“In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts,” the majority ruled.

September 2, 2021

IL Gov. J.B. Pritzker Decries Texas Heartbeat Law

IL Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D)
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker posted on Facebook Wednesday morning with a response to Texas's heartbeat law going into effect:

"My heart hurts for the people of Texas, where their state leaders put their radical and dangerous ideological agenda above the health and safety of the people they serve.

Abortion bans don't ban abortion. They endanger women – none more than rural women, poor women, young women and women of color.

I proudly joined our General Assembly in enacting Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act – guaranteeing the fundamental right to choose and, crucially, the access necessary to make choice possible.

Illinois is proud to be a beacon of hope in the Midwest, as demonstrated by the women forced to travel from Missouri for basic medical care.

But let's be clear: NOBODY should be forced to cross state lines to see a doctor. This latest attack proves reproductive healthcare needs to be enshrined into law."

Pritzker's post falsely claims that not having access to abortion businesses can "endanger" some women. His implication here is likely that women in the categories he listed are more likely to attempt risky self-managed abortion methods such as the infamous "coat hanger abortions." These abortions have a high degree of risk for the mother, and they should not be attempted. They are also entirely unnecessary, however. Crisis pregnancy centers, religious organizations, and pro-life charities all exist to help pregnant women get through difficult and unexpected pregnancies.

He also again touted the Illinois Reproductive Health Act and the fact that it made Illinois an abortion destination for the midwest. This is because it deregulated much of the abortion industry in Illinois, which makes it much easier for abortion businesses to commit health violations. This is very different from a state like Missouri, in which abortion businesses found guilty of health code violations find it very difficult to stay open.

Finally, in Pritzker's last sentence, is yet another admission from a pro-abortion advocate that the right to abortion is NOT law. It has only been the whim of the Supreme Court, and no federal statute or amendment crafted by legislators enacted a right to abortion. This fall, even that precedent will be called into question.

Texas Becomes First State to Enforce Heartbeat Law

The Supreme Court did not act on requests by pro-abortion advocates to block Texas's new heartbeat law before it went into effect on Sept. 1. As a result, Texas has become the first state with an enforceable ban against abortions conducted after an unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable.

Starting on Wednesday, private citizens in Texas could file lawsuits against those who conduct illegal abortions or “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets” an illegal abortion, “including paying for or reimbursing the costs of abortion through insurance or otherwise.”

Texas Right to Life has already created a website to receive anonymous tips on alleged illegal abortions to help facilitate legal action. Some pro-abortion activists seek to undermine this, however, by flooding the website with false information.

September 1, 2021

Corruption: Abortion Pill Study Author Paid By Pill Manufacturer

In a situation that unfortunately isn't all that uncommon, JAMA Network Open published a study last week claiming that the telehealth distribution of abortion pills during the COVID-19 pandemic has been safe. The catch? The study was co-authored by a doctor who was paid directly by the abortion pill manufacturer.

Before the pandemic, the FDA enforced a set of regulations called the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) on the distribution of abortion pills. These regulations required recipients of abortion pills to meet in person with a doctor before receiving pills. Doing so allowed doctors to correctly date a pregnancy and diagnose any potential conditions such as ectopic pregnancy. If the baby developed past a certain gestational age or there is an ectopic pregnancy, then taking the abortion pill regimen could put the mother's life at risk.

REMS guidelines were put on hold during the pandemic, and the FDA is currently considering whether they will come back at all.

While several of the study's authors have ties to pro-abortion organizations, Dr. Karen Meckstroth has the most direct conflict of interest. The authors even noted such in a disclosure. Meckstroth is the director of Women's Options Center, an abortion business that conducts abortion as late as 23 weeks gestation. The clinic is also a site for a pharmacy-dispensed abortion pill clinic trial.

The study's disclosure reads, “Dr. Meckstroth reported receiving personal fees from Danco, Inc, a distributor of mifepristone, for staffing a US Food and Drug Administration–mandated expert hotline. The mifepristone used in this care was purchased from GenBioPro, not Danco. No other disclosures were reported.”

Pro-Abortion Groups Call on Supreme Court to Take up Texas Heartbeat Act

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
On Tuesday morning, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that he would consider whether to bring a Texas heartbeat law before the full Supreme Court.

Texas SB 8 bans all abortions, except to save the life of the mother, after the child's heartbeat is detectable. That can happen as early as six weeks. Additionally, the law is enforced by civil lawsuits, but by a government body. Private citizens will have the power to file lawsuits against people implicit in breaking the law. This can include the doctors who commit abortions or third parties who pay for them.

After the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals canceled a hearing that was set for Monday and denied pro-abortion requests to expedite the appeal process, pro-abortion advocates asked the Supreme Court to intervene. If no action is taken, the law could see enforcement as soon as today.

“The Texas Heartbeat Act is the strongest pro-life legislation to pass the Texas Legislature since Roe v. Wade,” Texas Right to Life communication director Kim Schwartz told the Texas Tribune in an interview. “This is a huge victory and could save thousands upon thousands of preborn babies. We look forward to the day that it’s going to be enforced — hopefully very soon.”

Due to the uniqueness of Texas's SB 8, it is unclear whether a challenge to the law would threaten Roe v. Wade. For a case like that, pro-life advocates may have to wait until the fall. The Supreme Court will then hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case involves a Mississippi law that was drafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade.

August 31, 2021

5th Circuit Rejects Last-Minute Challenges as Heartbeat Law Set to go into Effect

Texas SB 8, which will prohibit elective abortions after an unborn child's heartbeat is detectable, was set to go into effect on Wednesday this week. After a last-minute effort from pro-abortion forces to have the law temporarily blocked, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals declined the request. This means that the law will very likely see enforcement.

Over 20 "abortion providers" filed an emergency motion on Saturday night in which they asked the 5th Circuit to issue a temporary stay against SB 8's enforcement or send the case back to a lower court. This came in response to the cancellation of a hearing on Monday that would have discussed SB 8. The 5th Circuit declined to take either action and does not plan to fast-track the appeals process for SB 8.

One abortion business, Whole Woman's Health, predicts that Texas SB 8 will prevent 90% of Texas abortions.

SB 8 is also unique in that it empowers individuals to file lawsuits against abortionists whom they believe violated the law. Because of this, its enforcement is not dependent on the whims of government officials.

Mississippi Man Pleads Guilty to First Degree Murder of Girlfriend He Suspected was Pregnant

After over two years of delays in the trial of Mississippian Brandon Theesfeld, who was charged with the murder of his girlfriend whom he suspected of being pregnant, he has pled guilty to murder in the first degree.

Pleading guilty of first-degree murder means that he won't face the death penalty for his actions, but he will still face a life sentence in prison.

On July 20, 2019, Theeself shot Alexandria Kostial multiple times, causing her death. He took this brutal action after having multiple conversations with her over text about her potential pregnancy. It was also found that he searched for information about abortion online in the months after Kostial first mentioned the potential pregnancy on April 12, 2019. As July 20 approached, he purchased a pistol and made internet searches for hollow tip ammunition, tactical face masks, and how convicted serial killer Ted Bundy lured his victims.

Click here to read more.

August 30, 2021

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.

August 27, 2021

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.

August 26, 2021

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.

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.