“CMS seeks to overtake an area of traditional state authority by imposing an unprecedented demand to federally dictate the private medical decisions of millions of Americans. Such action challenges traditional notions of federalism. Congress did not clearly authorize CMS to enact... this politically and economically vast, federalism-altering, and boundary-pushing mandate, which Supreme Court precedent requires.”
December 16, 2021
Federal Court Denies Biden's Request to Reinstate Vaccine Mandate for Doctors
Abortionist Suggests ER Doctors Should Falsify Records to Hide Abortion Complications
December 15, 2021
FDA Commissioner Nominee Questioned by Senators Over Abortion Pill Expansion
Robert Califf photo credit: Christopher Michel / Flickr |
December 14, 2021
Texas Right to Life Receives Second Bomb Threat Since Passage of Texas Heartbeat Act
IL Rep Withdraws Attempt to Force Insurance Companies to Discriminate Against Unvaccinated Illinoisans
IL State Rep. Jonathan Carroll |
December 13, 2021
Supreme Court Again Allows Texas to Enforce Heartbeat Act for Now
December 10, 2021
March For Life Chicago Returning Next Month
Texas Law Restricting Abortion Pills Goes into Effect
December 9, 2021
Dobbs v. Jackson: Sotomayor's Scientific (Un)truths on Fetal Pain
Sotomayor's Scientific (Un)truths on Fetal Pain
Part of the discussions during the oral arguments included statements regarding the humanity of unborn children as known through scientific research. One such discussion involved the idea of when an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain.
Justice Sotomayor asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart to explain why believed that "advancements in medicine" make the overturning of Roe v. Wade necessary. Stewart answered, “I think it is an advancement in knowledge and concern about such things as fetal pain, what we know the child is doing and looks like and is fully human very early.”
Sotomayor cut Stewart off, saying, “the minority of people, the gross minority of doctors who believe fetal pain exists before 24 or 25 weeks is a huge minority, and one not well-founded in science at all.” She continued, “So I don’t see how that really adds anything to the discussion, that a small fringe of doctors believe that pain could be experienced before a cortex is formed, doesn’t mean there has been that much of a difference since Casey.”
In another statement, Sotomayor suggested that the movement of a fetus recoiling from pain is similar to reflexes in dead bodies.
“Virtually every state defines a brain death as death. Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli,” Sotomayor said.
“There's about 40% of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil. There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. So I don't think that a response to — by a fetus necessarily proves that there's a sensation of pain or that there's consciousness,” the justice said.
Justice Elena Kagan echoed Sotomayor's comments, stating that "not much has changed since Roe and Casey." Such statements ignore scientific developments that continue to point towards the humanity of the unborn.
Dr. Stuart Derbyshire, one of the world's leading neuroscientists, changed his stance on fetal pain in a peer-reviewed paper released in 2019. In that paper, he states that he believes fetal pain is possible "from as early as 12 weeks." Interestingly, Derbyshire's earlier work is cited by the abortion industry's brief in the Dobbs case. They did not acknowledge his more recent research, however.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute summarized scientific developments in this area when it called on the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to reconsider their stance on fetal pain. In their statement, CLI wrote,
"For decades, most neuroscientists have operated by the axiom of ‘cortical necessity.’ This is the idea that a cerebral cortex – the thin, convoluted, outer layer of the brain that activates between 24 and 30 weeks’ gestation – is required to perceive pain. There has long been evidence to the contrary. But accumulating studies, especially two from 2016, strongly imply that cortical necessity is incorrect: evidence shows subcortical (lower) brain structures that develop much earlier than 24 to 30 weeks are sufficient for pain perception."
Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, M.D., who co-authored a science-based amicus brief in this case, responded to Sotomayor's statements in an interview with CNA.
“To compare an unborn child to a brain-dead person or a corpse flouts science which tells us that at 15 weeks gestation, a baby's organs are fully formed, her heart pumps 26 quarts of blood a day, and her lungs are already practicing drawing breath,” Christie said. “As recently as last year, doctors in the Journal of Medical Ethics wrote, 'Current neuroscientific evidence supports the possibility of fetal pain before the 'consensus' cutoff of 24 weeks' and may be as early as 12 weeks.”
“Not only does medicine agree that fetal anesthesia be administered for fetal surgery, a clear reflection of the medical consensus that unborn babies can feel pain, but like viability, the line marking when they feel pain continues to inch earlier,” Christie added.
Similar to the constitutionality of abortion, the science regarding the humanity of unborn children was not a major topic of discussion during oral arguments. Nonetheless, the humanity of the unborn child is at the center of the abortion issue. A unique human being separate from the mother and the father is created at conception, and that innocent human being deserves a chance at life.
December 8, 2021
Wisconsin Gov. Vetoes Five Pro-Life Bills
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) |
- A bill that would require medical professionals to provide life-saving care to babies who survive an attempted abortion
- a bill that would prohibit abortionists from carrying out abortions that are decided due to the child's race, sex, or disability diagnosis
- a bill that would require doctors who identify congenital conditions to also provide educational resources about that condition and inform parents of supportive resources available to them
- a bill enhancing abortion reporting requirements for abortion businesses and requiring those businesses to inform women of abortion pill reversal when they begin the chemical abortion process
- a bill that would have reduced state funding of abortion businesses by preventing them from registering as a provider under Medicaid
December 7, 2021
Dobbs v. Jackson: The Viability Standard
The Viability Standard
A major topic of discussion during the oral arguments was the viability standard created by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Under this precedent, the interest that states have in protecting the lives of unborn babies can only be enforced after the unborn child has reached an age of viability. The federal government recognizes this gestational age to be 24 weeks, although some babies have survived outside of their mothers' wombs after only 21 weeks gestation.
Mississppi Solicitor General Scott Stewart summarized the issue well when he gave his argument before the justices:
"Consider this case: The Mississippi law here prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. The law includes robust exceptions for a woman's life and health. It leaves months to obtain an abortion. Yet, the courts below struck the law down. It didn't matter that the law apply -- that the law applies when an unborn child is undeniably human, when risks to women surge, and when the common abortion procedure is brutal. The lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability, it is unconstitutional no matter what.
Roe and Casey's core holding, according to those courts, is that the people can protect an unborn girl's life when she just barely can survive outside the womb but not any earlier when she needs a little more help. That is the world under Roe and Casey.
That is not the world the Constitution promises. The Constitution places its trust in the people. On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work. Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us. When an issue affects everyone and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people."
The conservative majority, should they choose to overrule the precedents set by Roe and Casey, have several options of how to do so. They could
- simply move the viability standard from one subjective age to another (such as 15 weeks),
- return to an "undue burden" standard by which a set of rules would define when states have the right to protect the lives of unborn babies through legislation, or
- rule that the Constitution does not take a stance on abortion and return the issue to the states. This would give states the power to limit abortion however they choose.
"...if basically the viability line was discarded and undue burden became the standard overall, a standard that according to you is an unclear one, what that would leave the Court with going forward.You know, I'm just sort of thinking about the great variety of different -- of regulations that states could pass, so whether one is 15 weeks and one is 12 weeks and one is 9 weeks or variation across a wide variety of other dimensions. What would that look like coming to the Court?"
Stewart's response agrees that an undue burden standard could be problematic, but emphasizes that is part of the reason why Mississippi is recommending that the Supreme Court overturn Roe and Casey wholesale.
"...part of why we've counseled to overrule full scale is that that's the only way to get rid of a number of the problems that I think Your Honor's alluding to.
And that's that when you have the undue burden standard, it's -- it's a very hard standard to apply. It's not objective. The Court looks to the record in each case and what's going on. I mean, the Court in Casey itself said, under this record, this is not an undue burden. You -- you couldn't say necessarily for certain that a certain number of weeks one place would be an undue burden but would be okay another place. But, again, that is the world we have under Casey. So, if the Court upholds this law under the undue burden standard, it would be carrying forward with those features, which I -- and I hope I've answered your question, but I think that's one of the very strong reasons to just go all the way and overrule Roe and Casey, Your Honor."
Several statements by Chief Justice Roberts, however, implied an interest in simply moving the line at which abortion can be regulated from 24 weeks to 15.
“...if you think that the issue is one of choice, that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they've had the fair choice, opportunity to [choose], and why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Because viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. But, if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”
“...I'd like to focus on the 15-week ban because that's not a dramatic departure from viability. It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. When you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the People's Republic of China and North Korea.”
While moving the standard would provide a great benefit to the unborn, it would not make the issue go away. To truly protect the lives of the unborn, pro-life advocates would much prefer that the courts send this issue back to the states. If they do so, states can enforce legislation that values and protects their lives.
In our next Dobbs post, the IFRL will take a look at some of the medical statements made by pro-abortion justices and legal counsel.
December 6, 2021
Dobbs v. Jackson: Liberty and the 14th Amendment
Liberty and the 14th Amendment
Justice Clarence Thomas's exchange with US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on the pro-abortion side of the issue, cut to the crux of the constitutionality argument.
“I understand we are talking about abortion here,” Thomas said. “But what is confusing is that we — if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we are talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about because it’s written. It is there. What specifically is the right here that we are talking about?”
“The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas,” Prelogar responded. She argued that the right exists in an interpretation of the 14th Amendment's liberty component. The 14th amendment reads that "...the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Because unborn children are often not considered "persons" under the law, the pro-abortion interpretation is that this clause protects a woman from being "compelled" by the state to carry an "unwanted pregnancy" to term. The unborn child in this case would not be given similar rights to liberty or due process due to their legal status.
Julie Rikelman, representing the Center for Reproductive Rights, confirmed this with her own arguments before the court. "...Casey and Roe were correct," she stated. "For a state to take control of a woman's body and demand that she go through pregnancy and childbirth with all the physical risks and life-altering consequences that brings is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty. Preserving a woman's right to make this decision until viability... protects her liberty while logically balancing the other interests at stake."
Thomas also asked Rikelman where the constitutional right to abortion is found, and she similarly referenced liberty and the 14th Amendment.
This reasoning, of course, does not take into account the right of an unborn child not to be killed. Justice Kavanaugh correctly pointed out in one of his questions that the rights of both a mother and her unborn child cannot be respected at the same time during an abortion. "...you can't accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That's the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time, and that's why this is so challenging."
In our next post, the IFRL will highlight the court's discussion over the viability standard.
December 3, 2021
Dobbs v. Jackson: Stare Decisis
Stare Decisis
Pro-abortion Justices and the challengers to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban argued their position from the point of view that abortion precedent should stand under the principle of stare decisis. This principle means “to stand by things already decided.” The actual constitutionality of abortion was not a major topic of discussion.
One statement by Justice Sonia Sotomayor is an example of this. "The right of the woman to choose, the right to control her own body, has been fairly set since Casey and never challenged. You want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different," she said. "Thirty (justices) since Casey have reaffirmed the basic viability line. Four have said no, two of them members of this court. But 15 have said yes, of varying political backgrounds."
Justice Stephen Breyer also argued that it was not correct for the court to reexamine its precedent, saying, "To overrule under fire, in the absence of the most compelling reason, to reexamine a watershed decision, would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."
Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, challenged the idea that abortion precedent can't be touched by the court. He questioned US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on the pro-abortion side of the issue, by using the example of Brown v. Board of Education. That decision overruled the Plessy v. Fergusson precedent of "separate but equal."
After Prelogar initially did not give a direct answer, Alito said,
"I still don’t have your answer clearly. Can a decision be overruled simply because it was erroneously wrong, even if nothing has changed between the time of that decision and the time when the Court is called upon to consider whether it should be overruled? Yes or no? Can you give me a yes or no answer on that?"
Prelogar did eventually concede that she believed it was correct for the court to overrule its precedent in that case, but she added many qualifiers to her answer.
Justice Kavanaugh also challenged Prelogar, and argued that the Constitution does not make any statements on abortion whatsoever.
"The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on abortion. If we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong, why don't we return to neutrality?" Kavanaugh asked. "Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress?"
"There'll be different answers in Mississippi in New York, different answers and Alabama than California because they're two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently."
Prelogar responded that abortion is a "fundamental right" and that without it women would be unable to "participate fully and equally in society." She described abortion as a "central component of women's liberty." With this as her basis, she argued that the states did not have the right to protect the lives of the unborn through abortion restrictions.
Liberty does not give one human being the right to end the life another completely innocent human being. Prelogar's statements stretch the concept of liberty past their reasonable limits, and suggest that women are incapable of participating equally in society if they don't end the lives of their unborn children through abortion. Her description of Supreme Court precedent clearly shows why pro-life advocates so strongly oppose it. In our next post, we will examine the "liberty" to which Prelogar is referring more closely.
December 2, 2021
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women's Health
December 1, 2021
Study Shows Increased Risk of ER Visit After Chemical Abortion
The study, released by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) and published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, used Medicaid claims data to analyze the 423,000 confirmed abortions and 121,283 confirmed subsequent visits to the emergency room. The study included emergencies that occurred within 30 days of abortion by women over 13 years old who had at least one identifiable pregnancy between 1999 and 2015.
The data shows that abortion-related emergency room visits increased over 5000% between 2002 and 2015. In that same period, chemical abortions (abortions completed via the abortion pill) increased from 4.4% to 34.1% of all abortions.
Key findings from the CLI study include:
- Women who had chemical abortions were 53% more likely to visit the ER for an abortion-related reason. They were 22% more likely to visit the ER for any reason.
- For every 100 abortions, the study found 35 abortion-related ER visits. The rate of ER visits for surgical abortions increased by 315% from 2002-2015, while the rate for chemical abortions increased by 507%.
- Women who have a chemical abortion, and then have a second abortion of any time within 12 months were more than twice as likely to end up in the ER.
- Over 60% of abortion-related ER visits after chemical abortions in 2015 were miscoded by hospital staff as miscarriages. Whether intentional or mistaken, this could put those patients at increase risk or hide the dangers of chemical abortions.
November 30, 2021
Oral Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to be Heard this Week
This case stems from a 2018 Mississippi law that protects babies from abortion after they reach a gestational age of 15 weeks. Lower courts have blocked this law from being enforced, but Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch will have the opportunity to argue on its behalf. Fitch plans to argue against the current Supreme Court framework surrounding legal abortions.
In a statement released after the Supreme Court set Dec. 1 as the date for oral arguments, Fitch wrote,
“We are looking forward to the opportunity to present our case directly to the Justices this December. The Court has acknowledged that states have the authority to promote legitimate interests, including protecting women’s health and defending life; but its abortion precedents have denied the people and their elected leaders the ability to fully do so. In fact, the Roe decision shackles states to a view of facts that is decades old, such that while science, medicine, technology, and culture have all rapidly progressed since 1973, duly enacted laws on abortion are unable to keep up. With Dobbs, the Supreme Court can return decision-making about abortion policy to the elected leaders and allow the people to empower women and promote life.”
If you would like to watch a live stream of oral arguments on Wednesday, you can do so at the Mississippi Attorney General's website here.
November 29, 2021
CDC Report Shows Abortion Rate Increase
November 26, 2021
Tennessee to Pay Legal Fees for Abortion Businesses Temporarily Closed During 2020
40 Days For Life Reports 20,000 Baby Saved Since 2007
pro-life advocates at a 40 Days for Life Vigil in Chicago |
40 Days for life holds multiple campaigns each year, during which pro-life advocates work to save the lives of unborn babies through prayer, fasting, and sidewalk counseling. On Nov. 24, the 40 Days for Life website showed that campaigns have saved 20,368 lives since they began in 2007. Additionally, 114 abortion centers had closed and 229 abortion workers have quit their jobs during the 40 Days for Life campaigns.