Pro-Abortion Groups Announce $150 Million in Election Spending

Three pro-abortion organizations that have announced their plans for the 2022 midterm election will collectively spend $150 million in just nine states.

According to Politico, the spending will fund "paid ads, field programs, messaging research and polling."

LiveAction writes that the spending is "roughly double" what the three organizations collectively spent in 2018 (the last mid-term election year). It also writes that the three organizations spent approximately $82 million on the 2020 election.

The spending will target nine states, and it will benefit candidates running for state legislatures, governorships, and US Senate. The states include Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

Six of those states are holding competitive Senate races, and all nine have gubernatorial elections.

Amazon to Cover up to $4,000 in Out-of-State Travel Expenses for Employees' Abortions

Amazon announced on May 2 that it is implementing a new benefit that will reimburse employees up to $4,000 a year in travel expenses for certain "treatments," including abortion.

The new policy (retroactively made effective Jan 1, 2022) will cover the expenses of non-life-threatening treatments if they are not available within 100 miles of the employee's home and telemedicine is not possible. The inclusion of abortion as a "treatment," along with the timing of this announcement, makes it clear that the policy is primarily intended to flout pro-life state laws such as the Texas Heartbeat Act.

Amazon follows in the footsteps of other companies such as Citigroup, Uber, Lyft, Match, and Yelp. Companies could offer women life-affirming benefits allowing women to care for both their families and further their careers. $4,000 per year to pay for benefits such as maternity leave or child care reimbursement could help do this. Instead, rather than valuing women and their families, Amazon is encouraging women to choose abortion.

Click here to read more.

Tennessee Gov. Signs Telemedicine Abortion Ban

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R)

On May 5, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed a new law banning the delivery of abortion pills through the mail.

The new law states, “A manufacturer, supplier, pharmacy, physician, qualified physician, or other people may not provide an abortion-inducing drug via courier, delivery, or mail service.”

Additionally, the law requires abortion businesses to report all chemical abortions to the state. The forms for these reports will show which physician provided the abortion drug, and they will show whether the woman experiences an adverse event.

Abortionists who violate the law can face a Class E felony charge and a fine of up to $50,000.

Tennessee is the most recent state to ban mail delivery of abortion drugs. This issue became prominent in the Spring of 2021 when the FDA "temporarily" suspended safety regulations prohibiting the mail distribution of the drugs. The Biden FDA made the changes permanent in December, driving states to regulate the drugs themselves.

The at-home DIY abortions encouraged by mail-delivered abortion pills can pose significant health risks to women—especially women who take the pills later in pregnancy or women with undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies.

Click here to read more.

Biden Falsely Claims Leaked Opinion Would Undermine Other Rights

In response to the recently leaked Supreme Court draft opinion opposing Roe v. Wade, some pundits and politicians falsely claimed that the court's ruling would negatively impact a variety of other social issues. 

On Tuesday after the leak came out, even President Joe Biden made such claims. He said that if Roe v. Wade was overruled, it "would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question."

The President argued that all forms of contraception and legal same-sex marriage could be overturned. "I think the decision in Griswold [a 1965 decision that found that states could not outlaw contraception] was correct overruling; I think the decision in Roe was correct because there’s a right to privacy."

He also suggested that the Supreme Court's decision might allow states to ban same-sex marriage. "What does this do — and does this mean that in Florida they can decide they’re going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, that it’s against the law in Florida?" he told reporters.

Others have since claimed that the new precedent would even allow legislators to ban interracial marriage. "The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage," Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) wrote on Twitter. "Do you want to save that?" Swalwell wrote. "Well, then you should probably vote."

The text of the leaked draft decision itself clearly refutes these arguments. Justice Alito goes out of his way to clarify that this decision is only meant to rule on the issue of abortion. "None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion," the opinion reads. "They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way."

The Wall Street Journal editorial board published a helpful article on Wednesday that goes through the leaked opinion more thoroughly; refuting the president's arguments and explaining the justices' reasoning at the time that the draft was written. Click here to read it.

Schumer Sets Another Vote on Bill Creating Federal Right to Abortion

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced Thursday that he will call a vote for the "Women's Health Protection Act" (WHPA) to take place next Wednesday. The announcement is a response to the leaked draft opinion by Justice Alito showing that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade this summer.

The WHPA would establish a federal right to abortion until birth and specifically prevent states from enacting several other abortion restrictions. These include ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed consent laws, and safety regulations such as those requiring abortion businesses to maintain admitting privileges with hospitals.

Additionally, the WHPA would protect mail distribution of abortion pills, discriminatory abortions, and gruesome techniques such as dismemberment.

While the WHPA passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 218-211 in September, it failed in March to garner the 60 vote majority needed to bypass filibuster rules in the Senate. This vote is mostly a symbolic one on behalf of pro-abortion politicians.

Click here to read more.

Oklahoma Governor Signs Heartbeat Act

Oklahoma Gov Kevin Stitt

Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the Oklahoma Heartbeat Act into law on May 3. The law is modeled after the Texas Heartbeat Act, banning the abortion of children with detectable heartbeats. Oklahoma's Heartbeat Act took effect immediately when the bill was signed.

Just like Texas's law, Oklahoma's Heartbeat Act empowers private citizens to file lawsuits against those who commit or enable the abortion of a protected child. The child's mother cannot be targeted by such lawsuits. The only exception is in cases of medical emergencies.

Abortion businesses filed suit to block the Heartbeat Act, and that challenge went directly to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. That court voted 6-3 to reject a request by abortion businesses to issue a temporary injunction blocking the heartbeat law.

Earlier in April, Gov. Stitt signed separate legislation that would make it a felony to commit an abortion. That law also only includes an exception for medical emergencies. That law is scheduled to go into effect later this summer, but it was added to a separate court case involving several other abortion restrictions. It's possible that the Supreme Court could issue a decision overturning Roe v. Wade before these cases are decided, however. In that case, each state would be allowed to regulate abortion for themselves.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Draft Opinion Overturning Roe v. Wade Leaked to Media

In the evening on Tuesday, May 2, Politico published a draft majority opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Supreme Court precedent creating a right to abortion.

The draft opinion was written in February for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That case concerns a Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks. The state of Mississippi used the case as an opportunity to argue for the Supreme Court to overturn cases that created a constitutional right to abortion. 

As written, the opinion shows a 5-4 vote in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The opinion is just a draft, however. The Justices have every right to change their opinions before they reach a final decision.

In a press release on May 3, Chief Justice Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion. He made clear that the draft opinion does not represent a final vote. He wrote in a statement,

"To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell similarly called on the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice to investigate the leak. "The Chief Justice must get to the bottom of it and the Department of Justice must pursue criminal charges if applicable," McConnell said in a statement.

Pro-abortion actors quickly reacted to the leak. Some put pressure on Supreme Court Justices to change their stances. Pro-abortion politicians are using the leak as an opportunity to rally voters.

Gov. Pritzker wrote on Twitter, “Hell no! In Illinois, we trust women. We cannot let their most profound and personal rights be violated.”

He later wrote in a second tweet, “Let me be clear: this has always been the GOP’s ultimate goal. For a party that claims to be about freedom, Republicans can’t wait to deprive millions of women the right to choose. As long as I’m governor, Illinois will stay a beacon for reproductive freedom. We won’t go back.”

US Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) also spoke out on Twitter. She said, “this is not final and the far-right Supreme Court majority will not have the last word. The American people will. Tonight, it’s important we get loud, organize and demand action from the Senate. Retweet if you agree it’s time to protect Roe v. Wade NOW.”

Illinois House Speaker Emmanuel Welch spoke at an event Wednesday morning with pro-abortion legislators to voice their opposition to the draft opinion and rally voters. "It's a dark day today, but the sun will shine again," Welch said. "Because we will march, because we will vote. We will vote at the ballot box, we will vote with our pocketbooks."

Even President Joe Biden spoke out against the opinion. “So, the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court … goes way overboard,” the president said at a press conference. Pro-life advocates pointed out that Biden's statement that a "child" is aborted rather than a "fetus" affirms the truth that human life is ended during an abortion.

Click here to read more.

Missouri Ordered to Pay Legal Fees to Planned Parenthood

photo credit: Paul Sableman / Flickr

A new ruling by a federal judge allows the St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic to stay open while forcing the state of Missouri to pay the abortion business's legal fees.

Missouri has been trying to shut down the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in St. Louis for years. The facility, which has injured at least 75 women at this point, continues to operate without a license because Missouri Administrative Hearing Commissioner Sreenivasa Rao Dandamudi issued a stay allowing them to do so.

On April 29, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Missouri must pay Planned Parenthood $8,084 in legal fees. This comes after the court ordered the state to pay Planned Parenthood $140,000 in attorney fees in March 2021.

At least four of the 75 recorded injuries caused by this clinic were life-threatening, and a Senate investigation found several instances of women having to return up to five times after incomplete abortions. The investigation also found that Planned Parenthood staff instructed women not to call 911 if they experience complications.

Click here to read more.

Vermont Legalizes Assisted Suicide via Telemedicine

photo credit: Jim Bowen / Flickr

Vermont's newly passed law allows doctors to prescribe suicide drugs to patients via telemedicine. Even if a doctor has only spoken with the patient over Zoom, it will now be legal for that doctor to send the patient suicide drugs to be self-administered.

The legislation was passed by both houses and signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott (R).

The text reads that "A physician shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action if the physician prescribes to a patient with a terminal condition medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death..."

Vermont's law goes on to describe the restriction that a patient must abide by a 15-day waiting period to be prescribed suicide drugs. If the physician deems it appropriate, however, neither of the two requests for assisted suicide needs to be made in person.

Click here to read more.

Montana Fights Eight Year Old Injunction Blocking Parental Notice

Update: District Judge Chris Abbott responded to Montana's motion by promising that the case will be resolved soon. The next hearing will be in June.

He refused to lift the 8.5-year-old temporary injunction; arguing that this would make the process take even longer.

-----Original post continued below----

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen filed a motion in state district court demanding the court to immediately drop a 2013 preliminary injunction blocking the state's Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Knudsen argues that the lack of progress in this case after eight years is unacceptable, and the law should be enforced if the court hasn't issued a ruling.

“It’s been 3,181 days since the consent injunction was entered.” Montana's motion reads. “That’s eight years, eight-and-a-half months, or 104.5 months, or 34.8 trimesters since the State agreed to a preliminary injunction because it was confident the case would be decided quickly.”

Knudsen continued in an affidavit: “The state simply cannot consent to an order which, through inaction, results in denying Montanans the protections of duly enacted statutes and leaves the legal status of a popular referendum in doubt … The history of this case demonstrates an ongoing injustice against the people of Montana.”

70% of Montana voters approved the Parental Notice of Abortion Act on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Lawmakers subsequently passed that legislation in 2013, but Planned Parenthood filed suit. 

Click here to read more.

Senate Rejects Resolution to Stop Funding Abortions

Sen Maro Rubio (R-FL)

The US Senate voted 49-49 on April 27 to reject a joint resolution to reverse Biden's 2021 Final Rule on the Title X Family Planning Program. That rule reversed Trump's "Protect Life" rule, which prevented Title X funding from going to organizations that performed abortions, promoted abortion as a method of family planning, or referred women to abortion businesses.

The Senate resolution was introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the only Democrat to vote against Biden's rule. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) joined Democrats voting in favor of the rule.

“We praise Senator Rubio for this joint resolution and his work to prevent taxpayer funds from being used to subsidize the abortion industry that preys on women and their unborn children,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRLC). “Americans don’t want their taxpayer dollars used to subsidize abortion clinics.”

“For tens of millions of Americans, supplementing the abortion industry through taxpayer funds is offensive,” Tobias continued. “The Biden administration has shown that it is willing to do everything it can to facilitate and expand abortion on demand.”

Click here to read more.

Oklahoma Heartbeat Act Passes Legislature

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R)

The Oklahoma House voted on April 28 to approve the Oklahoma Heartbeat Act, a bill designed to mirror the Texas Heartbeat Act. The Senate voted to pass the legislation in March, so now it goes to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) for final approval. If signed, the law will take effect immediately.

Gov. Stitt has pledged to sign all pro-life bills that reach his desk.

Like Texas's Heartbeat Act, Oklahoma's bill would prohibit the abortion of unborn children with detectable heartbeats, which generally occurs at six weeks. It would be enforced through civil lawsuits rather than directly by the Oklahoma state government. That aspect of the Texas law has allowed it to survive legal challenges so far.

Oklahoma's Heartbeat Act includes exceptions for medical emergencies.

Click here to read more.

Fifth Circuit Instructs Texas Court to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Texas Heartbeat Act

The Texas Heartbeat Act's unique enforcement method has allowed the law to survive legal challenges for several months. On April 25, that streak continued.

Texas's Heartbeat Act empowers private citizens to file lawsuits against those who knowingly commit or enable abortions against children with detectable heartbeats. This effectively bans abortion after six weeks.

A three-judge panel from the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a district court to dismiss the abortion industry's primary lawsuit challenging the law. The US Supreme Court has seen this lawsuit twice; ruling that the defendants named were not valid. Because the law is enforced by private citizens, the court ruled that some of the state agencies named were not valid defendants.

This lawsuit was sent back to a district court, after which it made its way up to the Texas Supreme Court with a similar question. The Texas Supreme court ruled that the remaining defendants were not legitimate. Now the Fifth Circuit has used that ruling to inform its decision to order that the lawsuit finally be dismissed.

According to Texas Right to Life, 22 lawsuits were filed against the Heartbeat Act after its passage. While one of these lawsuits could still overturn the law, the Heartbeat Act has effectively reduced abortions in the state by 50% since enforcement started.

Click here to read more.

Idaho to Allow State Lawmakers to Defend Heartbeat Law

On April 21, the Idaho Supreme Court decided that state lawmakers would be allowed to defend the new Idaho law banning abortion after six weeks. The law is modeled after Texas's Heartbeat Act, which is still being enforced.

The law protects unborn children by allowing private citizens to file lawsuits against abortionists who kill unborn children after a heartbeat has developed (at approximately 6 weeks gestation). Idaho's law includes exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergencies. It also limits the people who can file lawsuits to close family members of the aborted child.

Republican House Speaker Scott Bedke requested that the legislature be allowed to intervene in the case challenging the law. He and other lawmakers argued that the Idaho attorney general's office “compromised its ability to defend the legislative body by expressing a legal opinion.” Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden has stated that the legislation was likely unconstitutional, while Idaho Gov. Brad Little suggested that the civil enforcement mechanism might prove unconstitutional.

“Because of the governor’s letter and the opinion of the attorney general’s office, the belief is well nigh inescapable that the Idaho attorney general’s office may be muted, even compromised, in its advocacy for the Legislature and legislative power,” the legislators petitioned.

Click here to read more.

Doctor who Intentionally Overdosed Dying Patients Found Not Guilty of Murder

Ohio doctor William Husel was accused of purposefully killing at least 25 terminally ill patients by administering the drug, fentanyl. On April 20, a jury found him not guilty of killing 14 of them. The other 11 charges were dismissed earlier in Husel's trial.

The first 11 charges were dropped because the patients were administered fentanyl doses below 1,000 micrograms. Some of the other patients were given as much as 2,000 micrograms. After receiving one such dose, a patient died within five minutes.

During Husel's trial, Franklin County prosecutor David Zeyen argued that Husel should not be exempted from murder charges just because his patients were ill or dying. “If you hasten a person’s death, even if their death is as sure as the sun is going to rise in the morning, if you hasten that along, you have caused their death under the eyes of the law,” he said.

Over 50 witnesses, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who worked with Husel, testified for the prosecution. Only one person testified on Husel's behalf.

If found guilty, Husel would have faced life in prison.

Click here to read more.

FDA Warns Against Using Inaccurate, Unapproved Prenatal Tests to Decide Abortion

A statement released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 19 warns against the use of non-invasive prenatal screening tests as a determining factor for the decision to abort a child.

“While genetic non-invasive prenatal screening tests are widely used today, these tests have not been reviewed by the FDA and may be making claims about their performance and use that are not based on sound science,” said Jeff Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Without proper understanding of how these tests should be used, people may make inappropriate health care decisions regarding their pregnancy. We strongly urge patients to discuss the benefits and risks of these tests with a genetic counselor or other health care provider prior to making decisions based on the results of these tests.”

The statement goes on to say, "...when screening for a very rare condition, a positive screening result may be more likely to be a false positive than a true positive, and the fetus may not actually be affected. In other cases, a positive screening result may accurately detect a chromosomal abnormality, but that abnormality is present in the placenta and not in the fetus, which may be healthy. "

The FDA expressed concern that patients are using the results of non-invasive prenatal screening to make decisions such as abortion.

In a more detailed post created by the FDA to coincide with its press release, it explained that non-invasive prenatal screening tests do not diagnose conditions such as down syndrome. Positive tests are supposed to show that a child has a greater risk of genetic abnormality compared to average. Negative tests show a lower-than-average risk.

Click here to read more.

Over 3,000 Babies Saved Through Abortion Pill Reversal

Heartbeat International revealed last week that the lives of over 3,000 children have been saved via abortion pill reversal.

Heartbeat International, which runs the Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN), also said that approximately 150 women start the abortion pill reversal process every month.

The process of abortion via the abortion pill regimen involves two separate drugs taken over several days. The first drug, mifepristone, blocks a pregnancy hormone called progesterone. That hormone helps facilitate the flow of nutrients and oxygen from a mother's body to her child. If progesterone is blocked for too long, an unborn child will die via starvation and asphyxiation.

The second drug, misoprostol, induces labor. The body of the (usually) deceased child is expelled, and the abortion is complete.

A woman who regrets her initial decision to have an abortion can potentially save her child with abortion pill reversal. If she has only taken the first drug in the abortion pill regimen, a doctor can administer progesterone in an attempt to counteract the mifepristone. This is most effective if done within 24 hours of the first pill.

APRN has a hotline that helps connect women who regret taking the first pill with doctors who can help with abortion pill reversal. Those who are interested can visit AbortionPillReversal.com or call 855-209-4848.

Click here to read more.

Judge Temporarily Blocks New Kentucky Pro-Life Law

On Thursday, April 21, US District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings issued a temporary restraining order blocking Kentucky from enforcing its new multi-faceted pro-life law.

The order does not rule on the law's constitutionality. It simply prevents Kentucky from enforcing the law while Jennings considers arguments. The order will expire after two weeks, but Jennings could issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law before then.

This law regulates abortion pills, creates certification requirements for abortion businesses, requires the cremation or burial of aborted children, and prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. It also takes steps to stop taxpayer funding of abortion, and it updates existing laws regarding parental consent and abortion reporting requirements.

“We are disappointed that the court chose to temporarily halt enforcement of the entire law.  This law is constitutional, and we look forward to continuing to defend it,” said Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Groups Challenge Lawsuit Against Pro-Life Michigan Law

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against a 1931 Michigan law banning abortion. This lawsuit was filed in anticipation that the upcoming Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson might allow states to once again decide the legality of abortion for themselves. Right to Life Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference are challenging Planned Parenthood's lawsuit; arguing that the abortion giant has no legal standing.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the pro-life organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on April 20 arguing that Planned Parenthood's lawsuit should be dismissed.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both made public their opposition to the 1931 law. Whitmer has launched her own separate lawsuit in an attempt to get the Michigan Supreme Court to intervene more quickly. Nessel has stated that she would not enforce the law even if Roe v. Wade was overturned. This is the same administration that would supposedly be defending the abortion ban from Planned Parenthood's lawsuit.

ADF senior counsel John Bursch said in a statement,  

“Michigan’s elected officials have a duty to uphold the law and protect all their citizens, including the innocent lives of unborn children.” He added, “Yet what we are seeing is the state’s top attorney general engaged in an unacceptable effort to attack a pro-life law that has existed peaceably with the state constitution for more than half a century. “

“We urge the court to swiftly dismiss this case because it not only lacks jurisdiction—both sides of the case are arguing for the exact same outcome—but also because it is based on a hypothetical situation. No matter how someone feels about abortion, they should be gravely concerned that Michigan’s attorney general refuses to defend a validly enacted and longstanding law.”

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Responds to Pro-Life Idaho Laws by Leasing a Building on the Border

photo credit: American Life League / Flickr

Much like how Planned Parenthood responded to pro-life policies in Missouri by establishing an abortion facility in Fairview Heights, Illinois, the Abortion giant is responding to Idaho policies by leasing a medical building in Ontario, Oregon.

Idaho's new heartbeat law has been temporarily blocked by courts, but the state also has two trigger laws that could go into effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Pro-life advocates hope that Roe is overturned this summer when the court makes its ruling on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).

Oregon has an established reputation as a pro-abortion state. Its lawmakers voted down legislation that would protect babies born alive during attempted abortions, and the state allocates millions of dollars to fund abortion.

Click here to read more.