Pro-Life Legislators Ask DOJ to Investigate Illegal Fetal Tissue Research

Last week, pro-life legislators sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and NIH Director Francis Collins requesting an investigation into controversial fetal tissue research conducted by the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt).

Recent reports from the NIH suggest that the university may have been endangering women (and violating federal law) by altering abortion procedures for the purpose of obtaining more intact fetal tissue. Even more disturbingly the same reports suggest that researchers may have been harvesting organs from babies capable of surviving outside of their mothers' wombs. All the while, Pitt's research received approximately $1.5 million in taxpayer funding from the NIH.

“Exploiting the body parts of aborted children for research purposes is repulsive and should stop, regardless of the outcome hoped for by researchers,” the letter reads. “Research using abortive fetal tissue is unethical, wrong, and has also been proven ineffective. Despite being used in clinical research since the 1920s, fetal tissue has not produced a single clinical treatment.”

The letter was led by Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Steve Daines (R-MT) along with Reps. Lisa McClain (R-MI) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO).

Legislators who co-signed the letter include Illinois Reps. Rodney Davis (R) and Mike Bost (R).

Click here to read more.

Texas Bans Mail Delivery of Abortion Pills

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R)

After the Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect on Sept. 1, pro-abortion activists began circumventing the law by mailing abortion pills to women from overseas. In response, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot signed a new law that will prohibit the mail delivery of abortion drugs effective December 2, 2021.

“The Texas legislature understood that the Abortion Cartel would fall back on the mail delivery of abortion drugs to bypass the Heartbeat Act and took action to prevent that scheme.  Their forward-thinking will save innocent lives,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

The law reads that “A manufacturer, supplier, physician, or any other person may not provide to a patient any abortion-inducing drug by courier, delivery, or mail service.”

Additionally, the law limits the use of abortion drugs to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, requires abortionists to examine women in person to rule out pregnancy conditions that would cause complications if the women took abortion drugs, and requires abortionists to report adverse effects caused by Mifeprex when used to induce abortions.

Click here to read more.

House Passes Legislation to Codifying Abortion Rights

Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755). If passed by the Senate, this legislation would override most state pro-life laws and codify a right to abortion in federal law.

The House voted 218 to 211 (mostly along party lines) in favor of the Women's Health Protection Act. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was the only Democrat to vote against the bill.

The Women's Health Protection Act prohibits states from enforcing most abortion regulations, mandates taxpayer funding of abortion, and could require health care workers to participate in abortions against their consciences.

Click here to read more.

Women's Health Protection Act Threatens to Codify Abortion Rights

Pro-abortion legislators in Washington are pushing to pass the deceptively named Women’s Health Protection Act. The bill does not protect women or their access to healthcare, but it does codify into law a right to abortion up until the moment of birth. Further than that, it could remove conscience protections for doctors who refuse to participate in abortions.

“The Women’s Health Protection Act is designed to remove all legal protections for unborn children on both the federal and state levels,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRLC). “The Women’s Health Protection Act is, in effect, the Abortion-Without-Limits-Until Birth Act.”

Tobias continued, “The only ones to benefit from this legislation would be abortionists and abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. This legislation endangers women and their unborn children, would expand taxpayer funding of abortion, and would no longer require that a woman be given information about the development of her unborn child.”

If the “Women’s Health Protection Act” is passed into law, a variety of pro-life protections would be nullified. These include informed consent laws, waiting period laws, laws protecting the consciences of pro-life doctors, and laws preventing non-doctors from carrying out abortions.

According to a report from The Heritage Foundation, the law would also block states from enforcing laws that:

• restrict discriminatory abortions based on race, sex, or genetic abnormality
• ban post-viability abortions
• introduce safety requirements for chemical abortions
• restrict taxpayer funding of abortion

“According to pro-abortion groups, if this law is enacted, abortion-on-demand would be allowed in all 50 states, even if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned. Elective abortion would become the procedure that must always be facilitated – never delayed, never impeded to the slightest degree,” said Jennifer Popik, J.D., director of Federal Legislation for National Right to Life.

Even pro-abortion Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supports codifying Roe v. Wade into law, said that she believes the bill goes too far. She argues that the pro-abortion bill would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by taking protections away from medical professionals who don't want to participate in abortions.

The Women's Health Protection Act does not just codify Roe v. Wade. It undoes many state and federal pro-life laws deemed constitutional even under current pro-abortion Supreme Court precedent.

Click here to read more.

Biden to Direct $10 Million in Grants to Abortion Businesses after Texas Heartbeat Act

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Last week, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra announced a “three-pronged Department-wide response” to the Texas Heartbeat Act. This includes distributing up to $10 million of taxpayer funding to abortion businesses in and near Texas.

The department says that it will award grants to any abortion businesses that “can demonstrate a need resulting from an influx of clients as a result of SB 8.” This includes Texas abortion businesses rushing to abort unborn babies before their heartbeats are detectable as well as abortion businesses out of state as women travel for abortions.

The HHS said that it plans to give abortion businesses additional funding in response to an “anticipated increase” in demand for “emergency contraception” and abortion drugs.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid also issued a memo suggesting that doctors could be removed from Medicare and Medicaid if they deny abortion to a woman with an “emergency medical condition.” The memo argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act enables the government to impose civil and monetary penalties against hospitals or individuals that don't offer abortion in some cases.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Announces Hearing Date for Dobbs Case

On Sept. 20, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization starting on Dec. 1. The highly anticipated case could challenge Supreme Court precedent regarding abortion.

The case is a challenge to Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which restricts abortion after 15 weeks gestation. While defending the law, the state of Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Roe v. Wade. The law includes exceptions for when the mother's life or “major bodily function” is at risk. It also includes an exception for when the unborn child is diagnosed with a condition that is “incompatible with life outside the womb.”

The Supreme Court will consider, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional.”

President Biden's Justice Department filed an amicus brief Monday requesting the court to maintain the current legal framework for legalized abortion.

Click here to read more.

Google Quashes Abortion Pill Reversal Ads

Rebekah Hagan with her son Zechariah, whose
life was saved from the abortion pill by
Abortion pill reversal.
Photo from the 2020 March for Life/Lisa Bourne

After receiving pressure from pro-abortion activists, Google has canceled advertisements for Abortion Pill Reversal.

Pro-abortion activists from the London-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) called on Google and Facebook to remove advertisements for Abortion Pill Reversal. The group relied on a discredited and incomplete study designed to debunk APR. 12 women had taken the first abortion pill in that study, and 3 of them experience hemorrhaging. Of those three, only one of them had taken progesterone, the drug used in abortion pill reversal. The study was rightly canceled due to the injuries women were facing. The study fails to prove that those injuries were caused by progesterone. While only one of the three injured women had taken progesterone, all three had taken the abortion pill.

“In a dramatic and unprecedented move, Google has sided squarely with extremist pro-abortion political ideology, banning the pro-life counterpoint and life-saving information from being promoted on their platform,” Live Action founder Lila Rose told CNA in a statement.

Rose said that on Sept. 13, Google took down all of Live Action's advertisements for abortion pill reversal. Google accused the advertisements of containing false information. Before Google took action on Sept. 13, the tech giant had run them for over four months.

Heartbeat International, which manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and its 24/7 helpline, was also targeted by Google's censorship.

“Women deserve to know the truth about all their options,” said Heartbeat International Vice President Betty McDowell. “That is why it is disappointing to see Big Tech kowtow to Big Abortion in the latest attack against pregnancy help.”

“By removing Abortion Pill Reversal ads from Google and Facebook—two of the largest tech companies in the world—these companies silence the only viable option for women who seek to reverse the effects of the abortion pill,” McDowell said.

Click here to read more.

Texas Abortionist Sued After He Admits to Breaking Texas Heartbeat Act

After a Texas abortionist openly admitted to breaking the Texas Heartbeat Act, two non-Texas residents filed lawsuits against him. While this may be the first instance of the Texas Heartbeat Act being used to take legal action against an abortionist, the two men filing these lawsuits seem to be using the situation as an opportunity to challenge the law rather than protect life.

San Antonio abortionist Dr. Alan Baird wrote on the opinion page of The Washington Post Sunday that he had violated the Texas Heartbeat Act on Sept. 6 by aborting an unborn baby who had a heartbeat. He wrote that he did this because he had “a duty of care to this patient...and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits abortionists from ending the lives of babies whose heartbeats can be detected, which usually happens around six weeks gestation. The law is enforced by individuals, who have the ability to file lawsuits against abortionists and those who assist in facilitating abortions. These can be people who pay for abortions or those who provide transportation. The mothers of these children can't be sued under the law.

The two men filing lawsuits against Dr. Baird include Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas man currently serving a 15-year house arrest sentence for tax evasion, and Felipe Gomez, a pro-abortion Illinoisan. Stilley told the New York Times that he is "not pro-life" and he hopes to collect the money he could be awarded by winning his suit. Gomez said that he would donate any winnings to pro-abortion activist groups.

“Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives,” John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, told the New York Times.

Click here to read more.

Pope Francis to Reporters: "Abortion is murder."

Pope Francis

Pope Francis addressed the press while traveling on the papal plane last week. While taking a question about abortion, he emphatically told them that abortion is not simply a political issue, it is murder.

"Abortion is more than an issue. Abortion is murder. Abortion, without hinting: whoever performs an abortion kills. You take any embryology textbook of those students that study in medical school. At the third week of conception, at the third, many times before the mother notices, all the organs are already there. All of them. Even the DNA. […]"

"It’s a human life, period. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear. And to those who can’t understand it I would ask two questions: Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically it is a human life. Second question: Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? I said this publicly […] when I did, I said it to [Radio] COPE, I have wanted to repeat it. And period. Don’t continue with strange discussions: Scientifically it’s a human life. The textbooks teach us that. But is it right to take it out to solve a problem? This is why the Church is so strict on this issue because accepting this is kind of like accepting daily murder."

Click here to read a full transcript of the Pope's remarks.

Federal Judge Denies Biden DOJ Request to Block Texas Heartbeat Act

Federal District Judge Robert Pitman on Sept. 16 denied a request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to block enforcement of the Texas Heartbeat Act.

The DOJ lawsuit has a hearing date scheduled for Oct. 1, but it petitioned Judge Pitman to grant a temporary restraining order against the Texas Heartbeat Act's enforcement until the case is decided. In a victory for pro-life advocates, Judge Pitman (an Obama appointee) denied the DOJ's request. This means that the Texas Heartbeat Act will see enforcement for the time being.

Judge Pitman refused a request by the DOJ to hold the hearing sooner, saying that Texas "wished to be heard." The state has until Sept. 29 to argue its case. After that, the DOJ will have until Oct. 1 to respond.

Renae Eze, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's press secretary, gave a response to Judge Pitman's Oct. 1 hearing date. “The most precious freedom is life itself. Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion,” Eze said in statement to The Hill. “Unfortunately, President Biden and his Administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn.”

Click here to read more.

20 States File Brief Against South Carolina Heartbeat Law

IL Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D)

On Sept. 15, the attorneys general from 20 states and Washington D.C. filed a joint amicus brief in support of a pro-abortion lawsuit challenging a South Dakota heartbeat law.

The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act requires that women first receive ultrasounds before having an abortion. If the ultrasound detects the unborn baby's heartbeat, aborting that baby would be illegal. A fetal heartbeat becomes detectable around the six-week mark.

Planned Parenthood predictably filed a lawsuit challenging the law after it was signed in February. It has been blocked from enforcement pending the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall.

The brief was co-signed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. Additionally, it was signed by the Attorneys General from Virginia, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

“South Carolina’s law prevents women from accessing essential medical care, potentially resulting in permanent long-term health impacts or even fatalities,” Raoul said in a press release. “The restrictive laws being enacted by states like South Carolina do not stop abortions. They jeopardize women’s lives by making it more difficult to receive safe abortions. Women have the right to make their own decisions about abortion care in consultation with their health care providers, and I will continue to oppose measures that deprive them of that right.”

Abortion restrictions do not make women less safe. Abortion providers who neglect abortion laws make women less safe. Women who attempt dangerous self-administered abortion procedures are risking the safety of themselves and their children. Abortion restrictions simply acknowledge the humanity of unborn children and seek to provide them the protection they deserve.

Click here to read more.

South Dakota Appeals Decision Blocking Counseling Requirement for Women Seeking Abortion

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R)

In 2011, South Dakota lawmakers passed HB 1217. This pro-life law, among other things, required pregnant women to consult with a pregnancy help center before scheduling an abortion. In August, Judge Karen Schreier refused to dissolve the injunction she issued against the consultation part of the law over a decade ago.

In response, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announced on Sept. 15 that the South Dakota legal team retained American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) attorney Jay Sekulow to join the South Dakota legal team in the Planned Parenthood v. Noem case. She had already promised that the state would 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,” Gov. Noem said at the time of Judge Schreier’s decision. “I look forward to the day when all life – born and unborn – is protected by law.”

Gov. Noem continued that Schreier's refusal to dissolve her injunction means “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.

7th Circuit Rules in Favor of Texas Pro-Life Activist Sued for Defamation

On Sept. 3, the 7th District Court of Appeals in Texas unanimously ruled to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against pro-life activist Mark Lee Dickson. The lawsuit was filed by the pro-abortion Lilith Fund, a group that helps women pay for abortions.

The lawsuit accused Dickson of defamation and conspiracy. Dickson, who is the Director of Right to Life of East Texas and the founder of the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative, criticized a Lillith Fund billboard that read, "Abortion is Freedom." Dickson said that the billboard advocated “for the murder of… innocent lives,” and he pointed out that Texas statutes prior to Roe v. Wade criminalized abortion.

The 7th Circuit ruled that Dickson's criticisms were protected by the constitution, saying that the lower court had "erred" in allowing the case to get as far as it had. The court ruled that the Lilith Fund must pay Dickson's court costs and attorney fees.

Click here to read more.

Appeals Court Lifts Injunction Against Indiana Abortion Laws

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Wednesday to lift an injunction placed against multiple Indiana abortion laws last month. This means that Indiana can enforce five previously blocked abortion laws while the appeals process continues.

The laws require that

• all second-trimester surgical abortions occur in licensed surgical centers or hospitals
• women receive abortion pills only during in-person visits with physicians
• patients receive in-person physical examinations before having abortions
• abortion pills never be distributed through the mail via telemedicine

Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker had struck down these laws in August, but Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita appealed her ruling. “We would expect our commonsense laws to be upheld as the appeal continues,” Rokita said in a statement. “Protecting the culture of life is the top priority of my office, and we will continue fighting for every life alongside our legislative partners.”

The Seventh Circuit ruling notes that the state has a good chance at winning its legal battle supporting the pro-life laws.

Click here to read more.

DOJ Pushes Federal Judge to Block Texas Heartbeat Act

This Tuesday, as part of the lawsuit the Biden Department of Justice filed against Texas last week, DOJ attorneys asked a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction against Texas's new law prohibiting abortions of unborn children whose heartbeats are detectable.

DOJ attorneys argued that an injunction "is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas and the sovereign interest of the United States in ensuring that its States respect the terms of the national compact."

Earlier this month, the Supreme court ruled on technical grounds that abortion providers had not made a sufficient case against the Texas Heartbeat Act. They made a 5-4 decision declining to block the law's enforcement, but that decision did not rule on the constitutionality of the Heartbeat Act's enforcement. Legal challenges could still make their way to the Supreme Court and potentially get a different result.

Texas's heartbeat act is resistant to normal means of legal challenges because it is enforced via civil lawsuits rather than direct action by Texas officials. Individuals in Texas can file lawsuits against abortionists or those who assist in the abortions of children with detectable heartbeats.

Click here to read more.

6th Circuit Blocks Enforcement of Tennessee Pro-Life Law

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling on Friday, Sept. 10 blocking the enforcement of pro-life Tennessee law.

The law takes several steps to reduce the number of abortions in Tennessee. Except in cases where abortion is deemed necessary to save the mother's life, the law bans

• discriminatory abortions due to race, sex, or Down Syndrome diagnosis
• abortions after the unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable
• abortions for juveniles currently in the custody of the Department of Children's services. Additionally, the option to receive a waiver from a judge was removed for this circumstance

The law also requires abortion clinics to provide information to women informing them about abortion pill reversal.

The law further includes tiered bans on abortion. If the courts conclude that the six-week ban (the heartbeat portion of the law) is unconstitutional, "cascading bans" can go into effect. The law automatically enacts abortions at eight, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 weeks of gestation in the case that courts strike down bans at younger gestational ages. While courts have enjoined the law pending decisions on its constitutionality, none of these bans are enforceable.

Click here to read more.

Police Evacuate Texas Right to Life Employees After Bomb Threat

Police evacuated Texas Right to Life employees from their headquarters on Friday, Sept. 10 after the pro-life organization received a bomb threat.

Texas Right to Life had received a bomb threat in an email. After that, a postal worker delivered a package that staff members deemed suspicious. They called the police, who immediately evacuated the building and called in the Houston Police Department's bomb squad. While x-ray review found that the package was not harmful, the police say that they will begin an investigation into the threat.

Bellaire Police Department Chief Onesimo Lopez told Fox News, “We take these kind of threats very seriously. Our Criminal Investigations Division is conducting an investigation into the threats and will follow up on any leads that develop. No other information is available at this time.”

Texas Right to Life received an influx of criticism from pro-abortion advocates shortly before the new Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect on Sept. 1. Texas Right to Life had volunteered to assist Texans in filing lawsuits against those who break the Texas Heartbeat Act. The Texas Heartbeat act empowers individuals in Texas to file lawsuits against those who abort babies with detectable heartbeats or those who aid in that process, such as paying for abortions or providing transportation (the mothers can't be sued under the law).

“We understand that some people will use violence to achieve their ends,” said Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham. “Sadly, the violence of abortion has been used for over 45 years so people can live as they wish; Texas Right to Life mourns violence both inside and outside of abortion facilities.”

“These recent crimes and conspiratorial acts against our work and our dedicated staff will not stop Texas Right to Life from ensuring that the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced,” Graham continued “We are resolved more than ever to strengthen programs and outreach to abortion-vulnerable women to empower them to choose life.”

Click here to read more.

Saint Xavier University in Chicago Covers Abortion in Student Health Plan

Saint Xavier University in Chicago—a Catholic school—is offering a student health care plan that includes abortion coverage for the second year in a row.

The College Fix reported on the plan last month. Its coverage noted that the Archdiocese of Chicago declined to comment on Saint Xavier University's policy.

“Benefits include abortion care services,” the student health insurance plan says. The plan also covers contraception and sterilization procedures.

Sarah Michalak, a Catholic SXU graduate who grew up in the Archdiocese of Chicago, now works as the Students for Life of America Upper Midwest Regional Coordinator. In an interview with The College Fix, she voiced her disappointment with her alma mater.

“As an alumna of Saint Xavier University, I am disappointed to see they are not upholding their Catholic ideals,” Michalak said. “Catholic universities should be beacons of life, love and truth. It’s the responsibility of Catholic universities to authentically care for their students, and abortion is not authentic support for pregnant and parenting students,”

“We know that abortion is not authentic support and we will fight for pregnant and parenting students and preborn babies,” Michalak said. “If the university is unaware of this inconsistency, we are hoping that they will correct their error immediately.”

Click here to read more.

Montana AG Asks Court to Dismiss Challenges to Pro-Life Laws

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit last month against the state of Montana over four pro-life laws passed in the state's most recent legislative session. Last Tuesday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen called on Yellowstone District Court to reject Planned Parenthood's attempt to have the laws blocked before they can be enforced.

The Montana laws include a ban on abortion after unborn children reach 20 weeks gestation, a requirement that women be given the option to view an ultrasound before having an abortion, informed consent requirements for abortion pills, a ban on the distribution of abortion pills through the mail, and a ban on federal exchange health plans in Montana from paying for abortions.

“Because the regulations at issue protect women from the very people who are suing against these laws, Planned Parenthood has no basis for asking the court to halt what the legislature had every prerogative to pass,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Denise Harle in a statement.

Without court intervention, the pro-life laws are set to take effect on October 1.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Groups File Lawsuits Against Oklahoma Pro-Life Laws

Oklahoma State Capitol

Several pro-abortion groups filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma in an attempt to block several pro-life laws from taking effect next month.

The pro-life laws in question take significant strides to reduce the number of abortions in Oklahoma. The potential abortion regulations that could restrict abortions in Oklahoma starting on Nov. 1 include the following:

• medical professionals who abort children for reasons other than to save the mother's life or to “prevent substantial or irreversible physical impairment” would have their medical licenses suspended for at least one year
• abortions after an unborn child's heartbeat can be detected would be prohibited
• only doctors who are board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology would be allowed to commit abortions
• the use of abortion pills would face multiple new regulations

The Oklahoman reports that the abortion organizations suing the state of Oklahoma over the pro-life laws include The Center for Reproductive Rights, multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates, the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, and others.

Click here to read more.