Coast Guard Announces Plans to Pay Abortion Travel Expenses

The US Coast Guard is the latest federal agency to announce a policy that will pay the abortion travel expenses for members and their dependents.

The Coast Guard policy was created to conform with a directive from President Biden's Secretary of Defense Lloyd James Austin III. In October 2022, the Secretary of Defense released a memo announcing that the military will pay abortion travel expenses. The policies are designed to undermine pro-life laws that would otherwise protect the unborn children of servicemembers stationed in pro-life states.

A Coast Guard bulletin on March 1 announced the new policy. It includes administrative absence and convalescent leave for abortions. In addition to paying travel expenses, the policy prevents loss of pay or loss of earned leave.

Fertility treatments such as IVF are also covered by the new policy. IVF is known to destroy or indefinitely freeze fertilized embryos. These embryos are unique, innocent human beings with a right to life.

Click here to read more.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Trigger Law with Caveat

Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice M John Kane IV

On March 21, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that Oklahoma's trigger law banning abortion is constitutional. At the same time, the court created a constitutional right to abortion without the "absolute certainty" that the mother's life is in danger; though the risk must be greater than a "mere possibility." This subjective standard has drawn ire from pro-life advocates.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court primarily used the history and tradition of Oklahoma, rather than the text of the state constitution, to determine that the Oklahoma Constitution creates a right to abortion to protect the life of the mother (an exception that was included in the trigger law). The majority wrote,

“The law in Oklahoma has long recognized a woman’s right to obtain an abortion in order to preserve her life (“unless the same is necessary to preserve her lie”). Our history and tradition have therefore recognized a right to an abortion when it was necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman. This right can be viewed as protected by the Oklahoma due process section. It can also be viewed as a right protected under the inherent rights provided in article II, section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

… We hold that the Oklahoma Constitution creates an inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life. We would define this inherent right to mean: a woman has an inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if at any point in the pregnancy, the woman’s physician has determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy. Absolute certainty is not required, however, mere possibility or speculation is insufficient."

In his dissent, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Richard Darby wrote, “The majority opinion purports to…find that–based on the Oklahoma statutory exception allowing abortions when necessary to preserve the life of the mother—Oklahoma has a constitutional due process right to abortion if necessary to preserve the life of the mother.”

Justice Dustin Rowe's dissent pointed out that the majority's decision states, “We make no ruling on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of pregnancy…” Rowe wrote, “I can only read this language as an attempt by the majority to leave the door open to further constitutional challenges, and certainly not to resolve this issue.”

Tony Lauinger, the State Chairman of Oklahomans for Life, wrote "The worst of it is, in determining whether an abortion is 'necessary to preserve the life of the mother,' the Court has created a subjective standard which is virtually as broad as the health exception in Doe v. Bolton and which allows the abortionist to be as arbitrary as he wants. 

Click here to read more.

Hawaii Gov Signs Law Protecting Abortionists, Repealing Parental Notification

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green (D)

On March 22, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation expanding abortion in the state by lowering the qualifications for abortionists, ending a requirement that abortions be committed in medical facilities, and repealing Hawaii's parental notification law.

The law also protects abortionists in Hawaii from extradition to other states if they broke pro-life laws in other states. Hawaii state officials are prohibited from assisting pro-life states during investigations regarding abortion crimes.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a similar protection into law at the beginning of the year. HB4664 protects abortionists in Illinois from extradition to other states if they are accused of breaking pro-life laws in those states.

Hawaii's law further allows physician assistants to commit surgical abortions during the first trimester, and it ends a requirement that abortions be committed in hospitals or abortion facilities. The latter requirement was removed to legalize DIY at-home abortions using the abortion pill regimen.

Hawaii again follows Illinois in its repeal of a parental notification law. Pritzker signed a repeal in December 2021. Parental notification requirements not only allow parents to be involved in the deeply traumatic decision of abortion, but it helps make them aware of rape and human trafficking that are otherwise hidden by the abortion industry.

Click here to read more.

Illinois March for Life Holds Rally at State Capitol

On March 21, thousands of pro-life advocates came to Springfield for the first Illinois March for Life at the state capitol.

Formerly "March for Life Chicago," the organization changed its name to "Illinois March for Life" last year after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Rather than holding annual marches in Chicago, Illinois March for Life now plans to hold annual rallies at the capitol while the legislature is in session.

Among the bills currently being considered by state legislators are HB2463 and SB1909. The two bills would enact the "Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Act." If passed into law, it would empower the Illinois Attorney General to investigate pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) whenever he "believes it to be in the public interest that an investigation should be made to ascertain whether a limited services pregnancy center has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in, any practice declared to be unlawful by the Act."

No evidence or complaint is required for the Attorney General to launch an investigation. The Catholic Conference of Illinois has expressed fears that investigations could be endless, forcing PRCs to close.

Practices declared to be unlawful by the act include "using or employing any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact" with the intent to "interfere" with a person trying to access abortion or "emergency contraception." Because "material fact" is not defined, many pro-life advocates fear that an Attorney General could interpret the law to punish PRCs that refuse to refer women for abortions. Clinics found guilty of violating the law could be fined up to $50,000.

Springfield Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki led a mass service at Sangamon Auditorium before the events of the day. "Fear and anxiety can push women to believe that abortion is their only option," he said. "As Catholics, we know that abortion is never the answer for a woman in need."

Click here to watch a recording of the rally at the capitol.

US Supreme Court Throws Out Ruling that Court Clerks can be Sued for Denying Parental Notification Bypass

On March 20, the US Supreme Court threw out a lower-court ruling which allowed a 17-year-old to sue a Missouri state court clerk for refusing to grant a judicial bypass for Missouri's law requiring minors to obtain parental consent for abortions.

Missouri's parental consent law allows minors to bypass the consent requirement by receiving permission from a court. Federal courts often required parental consent and notification laws to contain judicial bypass provisions while Roe v. Wade was a standing Supreme Court precedent.

The minor went to a Missouri courthouse in 2018 to seek a judicial bypass for the parental consent law. Court clerk Michelle Chapman interpreted Missouri's law to require her to notify the minor's parents of the hearing. Not wanting to notify her parents, the minor chose to travel to Illinois where she obtained a judicial bypass and an abortion.

Illinois's Parental Notice of Abortion Act was still in place at the time, but abortion businesses were known to have relationships with abortion-friendly judges who could provide judicial bypasses. A bill repealing the parental notice law was passed with pro-abortion Gov. JB Pritzker's signature on Dec. 17, 2021. The repeal became effective on June 1, 2022.

Chapman, represented by lawyers with the state of Missouri, asked the Supreme Court last year to take up her case and determine whether minors have the right to a judicial bypass hearing without parental notification. Her team believed that the Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturning Roe v. Wade could make a difference in the case.

The Supreme Court vacated the 8th Circuit's decision denying that Chapman had immunity from the minor's lawsuit. The court sent the case back to that court to be dismissed as moot. The justices did not provide reasoning for the ruling, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent. Jackson's dissent was primarily concerned with procedure, arguing that the court should not have intervened since the case had ended.

Click here to read more.

Vermont Becomes Second Assisted Suicide Tourism State

On March 14, the Vermont attorney general's office agreed to drop the state's residency requirement to qualify for assisted suicide.

Connecticut resident Lynda Bluestein sued Vermont alongside Dr. Diana Barnard, a Vermont physician willing to prescribe lethal drugs to Bluestein and facilitate her death. Bluestein sought assisted suicide due to terminal cancer.

“I was so relieved to hear of the settlement of my case that will allow me to decide when cancer has taken all from me that I can bear,” Bluestein said. “The importance of the peace of mind knowing that I will now face fewer obstacles in accessing the autonomy, control, and choice in this private, sacred and very personal decision about the end of my life is enormous.”

Oregon made a similar change to its assisted suicide in March of 2022 after it was sued by a pro-assisted-suicide group. This makes Vermont the second state to open itself to "suicide tourism."

Like pro-abortion groups funnel vulnerable women to "abortion tourism" states like Illinois, assisted suicide groups can now take advantage of suffering patients from across the country by encouraging them to die in Oregon or Vermont.

Click here to read more.

Two Wyoming Pro-Life Bills Pass into Law

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon (R)

Update: On March 22, Teton County District Court Judge Melissa Owens granted a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of the "Life is a Human Right Act." The restraining order suspends the law for two weeks, but that duration could be extended while court proceedings continue.

---------

On Friday, March 17, two pro-life Wyoming bills passed into law. One was signed into law by pro-life Gov. Mark Gordon (R), but he allowed the other to go into effect without his signature.

Gordon signed Senate Enrolled Act 93. This law will make it illegal “to prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell or use any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion on any person.” The law exempts pregnant patients from penalties. Abortionists and prescribers could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison and a $9,000 fine.

With Senate Enrolled Act 93, Wyoming becomes the first state to pass a law outlawing the use of abortion pills separately from a total ban.

The second bill, the "Life is a Human Right Act," is a broad abortion ban. The legislature hopes that the broad ban will withstand a legal challenge, as a separate ban has been blocked pending a court decision. Gordon chose not to sign the bill because he believes it will delay a pending court decision regarding whether the Wyoming Constitution allows for abortion restrictions.

Gordon wrote, "HEA0088 Life is a Human Right Act will become law without my signature as it seems to be the will of the legislature, and while it may offer some improvement to the bill I signed just last year, I believe now more than ever that if the Legislature seeks final resolution on this important issue, it ultimately may have to come through a Constitutional amendment."

Gordon emphasized that he wants the courts to reach a decision about the constitutionality of abortion as soon as possible. This way, Wyoming could begin the process of proposing a Constitutional amendment on which Wyoming citizens can vote.

Click here to read more.

New Mexico Gov. Signs Bill Overriding Local Abortion Bans

New Mexico Gov Michelle Lujan Grisham (D)

On March 16, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed legislation to override pro-life ordinances designed to limit abortion. Pro-lifers express concerns that this legislation could also legalize infanticide.

New Mexico HB 7 prohibits school boards, city councils, and other local governments from limiting "access to reproductive and gender-affirming health care" including abortion.

The American Center for Law and Justice expressed concerns that the new law (along with SB 13, which awaits the governor's signature at the time of writing) could collectively legalize infanticide.

“HB 7 and SB 13 do contain the term ‘perinatal’ as one of the elements of reproductive health care with which the government [or agent of] cannot interfere, deny or restrict,” ACLJ attorney Olivia Summers said.

Perinatal care includes care provided in the late stages of pregnancy and care provided to a child in the days and weeks after birth.

“By including the section that prohibits prosecution or punishment for not seeking perinatal care, the bill appears to be a cleverly crafted way to specifically protect against a failure to seek perinatal care for a baby born alive following a botched abortion.”

Elisa Martinez, executive director for the New Mexico Alliance for Life, took issue with language in HB 7 that would penalize public employees for interfering with another person's access to abortion. Institutions found to violate the law could face fines of up to $5,000.

“Ideologically driven legislation like this has the exact opposite effect to what the sponsors proclaim, as it is a mandate on behavior to refer or participate in abortions and transgender procedures for every public employee,” Martinez said.

Click here to read more.

Unlicensed Rockford Abortionist Dodges Zoning Laws at "Home Business" Clinic

Abortionist Dennis Christensen

Despite operating a "home business" abortion clinic in Rockford, IL, a FOIA request by Operation Rescue found that abortionist Dennis Christensen still does not have a medical license in Illinois. He is also facing a lawsuit from neighborhood residents for circumventing zoning ordinances.

FOIA requests made by Operation Rescue revealed that Christensen does not have an active Illinois medical license. His most recent license expired in 2017 after his last Rockford abortion clinic was shut down by the state of Illinois. In 2011 inspectors found the Rockford clinic had unsanitized medical instruments, "brown substances" on surgical equipment and gloves, no hospital admitting privileges, and no registered nurse present during invasive procedures.

Christenen's new abortion business, the Rockford Family Planning Center, is located on Auburn St in a residential neighborhood. The Rockford Zoning Board of Appeals allowed the clinic to operate in the location due to a 40-year-old special permit allowing a home medical office there. The permit requires the operator to use the building as his primary residence. Christensen hopes to meet this requirement by arranging for the "manager of the site" to live in the clinic.

Citizens living in the neighborhood filed a lawsuit against Christensen for his attempt to skirt the zoning law. The lawsuit alleges that the zoning board erred in its decision to allow Christensen to operate a "home business" out of a building that is not his home.

Christensen purchased a second location at 4236 Maray Drive last summer. He plans to sell surgical abortions from that location. The "home business" clinic currently only offers abortion pills.

“The recklessness already legally present in the state is apparently not enough for Christensen and the city of Rockford,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “This illegal killing center currently operating, as well as Christensen’s plans for another abortion business in the city, needs to be shut down for good. The lawlessness in Rockford just adds to the dangerous, legal abortion clinics spread throughout the state that continue to put abortion-vulnerable mothers at extreme risk – including those traveling from other states.”

Click here to read more.

Utah Gov Signs Bill Prohibiting Abortion at Non-Hospital Facilities

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R)

On March 15, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed legislation prohibiting abortion in non-hospital settings. Unless the law is blocked by a judge, abortion clinics in Utah will no longer be able to commit abortions.

The new abortion law also requires doctors to inform parents about perinatal hospice and palliative care if their preborn children are diagnosed with fatal conditions.

The Utah Hospital Association told the Associated Press that no hospitals in the state provided elective abortions last year. The association declined to say whether any hospitals planned to offer them if abortion clinics closed.

Utah passed two pro-life laws recently: one in 2019 and another in 2020. The 2019 law limits abortion to the first 18 weeks of gestation, and the 2020 law bans abortion at all gestational ages with some exceptions. The 2020 law is currently blocked pending the outcome of a Planned Parenthood lawsuit. The 18-week limit is still in effect.

Click here to read more.

North Dakota Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Blocking Trigger Law

On March 16, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that a lower court's injunction blocking the state's pro-life trigger law could stay in place while the legal challenge continues. In its ruling, the court wrote that the law is likely unconstitutional.

North Dakota's trigger law was passed in 2007 and was written to take effect upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Under the law, a person who commits an abortion could be found guilty of a felony unless the mother's life was in danger, or the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. Only the abortionist, not the mother, could be found guilty under the trigger law.

The trigger law was set to take effect 30 days after Roe v. Wade was overturned, but a district court issued an injunction to block it. The injunction came after Red River Women's Clinic sued to block North Dakota from enforcing the law. North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley filed an appeal asking the state supreme court to reinstate the trigger law, but the court has refused.

“The North Dakota Constitution explicitly provides all citizens of North Dakota the right of enjoying and defending life and pursuing and obtaining safety,” Chief Justice Jon Jensen wrote in the majority opinion. “These rights implicitly include the right to obtain an abortion to preserve the woman’s life or health.”

This is an odd statement since the law explicitly includes an exception for cases when the mother's life is in danger. Further, in direct contradiction with a supposed right to defend life, abortion threatens the lives of innocent children.

Opinions from the North Dakota Supreme Court's decision to let the injunction remain mentioned that this right to abortion is found in the state's right to self-defense. This logic appears to assume that a mother's life and health are attacked by her unborn child. This treats the child more like a parasite assaulting a woman's body than an innocent human being with a right to exist.

While the court did not issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, its decision does not bode well for the fate of North Dakota's trigger law.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Senators Demand that Major Retailers such as Walmart Sell Abortion Pills

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)

On March 13, seventeen pro-abortion senators, including Illinois Sen Tammy Duckworth (D), sent letters to retail and pharmacy chains demanding that the companies distribute the abortion pill mifepristone in all 50 states. The senators took particular offense at Walgreens's announcement that it would not distribute mifepristone in 21 states to conform with the Comstock Act.

The senators wrote to Walmart, Costco, Albertsons, and Kroger, “We write with great frustration that [your company] has not indicated whether it plans to allow your customers to access mifepristone through your pharmacies…We urge you to pursue policies that provide the strongest possible access to the full range of essential health care they need, including mifepristone, and to communicate clearly to your customers about how they can access this care.”

To Walgreens, which has announced plans to sell abortion pills in all but 21 states, the senators wrote,

"We write with grave concerns about the misunderstanding and confusion your company has created with regard to patients’ access to mifepristone from retail pharmacies. Earlier this month, it was reported that Walgreens does not intend to fill prescriptions for a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug in states where it is legal for patients to access that product. While we are well aware of threatening letters you received with regard to the distribution of mifepristone in certain states, the response to those pressures was unacceptable and appeared to yield to these threats—ignoring the critical need to ensure patients can get this essential health care wherever possible. As you work through the FDA certification process, we urge you to fully assess the laws in each state and ensure your policies provide the strongest possible legal access to this critical patient care."

Walgreens's announcement that it would not dispense abortion pills in 21 states came in response to a letter it received from a group of pro-life attorneys general. The group wrote to CVS and Walgreens to inform them that the Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of any item that will ‘be used or applied for producing abortion.’ Walgreens, rather than risk prosecution in states with pro-life attorneys general, elected to only sell pills in states with more abortion-friendly governments.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-OK), New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) are also on record urging Walgreens to distribute abortion pills in violation of pro-life federal and state laws. Gov. Newsom went as far as to announce, "California won't be doing business with Walgreens -- or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women's lives at risk." All of these politicians appear to be using their power to threaten businesses that don't fall in line with their pro-abortion agenda.

The pro-abortion senators also sent letters to CVS and Rite Aid, thanking them for their announcements to sell abortion pills and asking them how they “plan to notify current customers about access to mifepristone in any given state, where restrictions do and do not exist.”

The seventeen senators who signed the March 13 letters include Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Wyden (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Attorneys General Sue FDA Over "Excessive Regulation" of Abortion Pills

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D)

On February 23, a group of twelve pro-abortion attorneys (including Illinois AG Kwame Raoul) general has filed a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration FDA claiming that the agency “unnecessarily singl[ed] out the abortion drug mifepristone for excessive regulation” by applying its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) safety regulations. The lawsuit seeks to stop REMS regulations from applying to mifepristone. 

“Despite the millions of patients who have safely used mifepristone for abortion care and miscarriage management, the FDA continues to categorize mifepristone as a dangerous drug requiring unnecessary restrictions,” Raoul said in a press release. “The science clearly shows that mifepristone is safe, which is why I am urging the FDA to remove these burdensome restrictions that limit access to safe and effective health care.”

Raoul's press release goes on to say,

"The lawsuit asserts that the FDA exceeded its authority by continuing its unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on mifepristone. The lawsuit also argues that the FDA’s actions violate the constitutional principle of equal protection. Raoul and the coalition are asking the court to find the FDA’s REMS restrictions unlawful and to bar the federal agency from enforcing or applying them to mifepristone. It also seeks to ensure that mifepristone remains accessible."

The Obama and Biden administrations have weakened REMS regulations against mifepristone during their tenures, but neither has ended them entirely. Obama's FDA ended an REMS requirement that mifepristone manufacturers report non-fatal complications. Biden's FDA ended a requirement prohibiting the mail distribution of mifepristone.

The lawsuit is reminiscent of lawsuits against pro-abortion Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's administration. One of these lawsuits was filed by Planned Parenthood, and the other was filed by the governor herself. These lawsuits featured pro-abortion plaintiffs filing complaints against pro-abortion defendants. In the same way, pro-abortion attorneys general are now filing lawsuits against the pro-abortion Biden FDA over regulatory decisions made by prior administrations. 

Joining Raoul in the lawsuit against the FDA are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Click here to read more.

Biden Admin Pushes for Abortion in WHO Pandemic Treaty

The Biden administration argues that a proposed World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic treaty should include an obligation to provide abortions as part of essential healthcare services during pandemics.

Biden's negotiators agreed with China that future negotiations on this treaty be kept secret from the public.

“A commitment to equity must address inequities not just between countries, but also within them, not just protecting people from pandemics but also from illness, death, and disrupted access to essential health care services during pandemics, including sexual and reproductive health services,” U.S. Ambassador Pamela K. Hamamoto said.

Proposals made during the negotiations would give the Director of the World Health Organization authority to declare global pandemic emergencies that would trigger binding obligations.

Click here to read more.

Texas Heartbeat Act Faces Lawsuit from Women who were Denied Care due to Pregnancy

The Texas Heartbeat Act, which remained incredibly sturdy during a series of legal challenges that took place before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, now faces a lawsuit from a group of women who claim they were denied medically-necessary abortions.

The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights is representing the group of women in this lawsuit. The lead plaintiff is Amanda Zurawski, who was denied medical care for an incompetent cervix at 18 weeks gestation. Texas doctors refused to provide treatment, citing the Heartbeat Act.

Pro-life laws in Texas already include an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger, but pro-life doctors argue that abortion is not required to treat any condition. Further, it is slower and less effective than pre-term delivery or a C-section.

Dr. Christina Francis, CEO-Elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told Live Action that doctors had several options to treat Zurawski that did not include abortion. “Many times, if infection is ruled out, women can be treated with a stitch, called a cerclage, which is placed in her cervix to hold the unborn baby in until he or she can survive outside the mother,” she said. “An attentive physician should be able to detect signs of infection early and, if present, provide the appropriate treatment – which would be induction of labor. This treatment is not prevented by any abortion restriction in the country.”

Texas Right to Life wrote in a press release that the plaintiffs experienced medical neglect, and the standard of care they experienced was not required by Texas law.

Plaintiffs are asking for Texas law to be clarified by creating a "binding interpretation" of medical exceptions to allow doctors to exercise "good faith judgment" to commit abortions. Texas Right to Life wrote that such exceptions would create loopholes and endanger the lives of the unborn.

Click here to read more.

Illinois Bills Threaten Pregnancy Resource Centers

photo credit: Mark Turner / Flickr

Legislation being considered by the Illinois House and Senate would allow the state Attorney General to launch investigations against pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) whenever he feels it is in the "public interest."

HB2463 and SB1909, titled the "Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Act" is another attempt by pro-abortion legislators to pass this anti-PRC since they were unable to pass a similar bill before the lame-duck session ended in January.

The bills would prohibit "a limited services pregnancy center from using or employing any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact" with the intent to "interfere" with a person trying to access abortion or "emergency contraception" (which can act as an abortifacient).

"Material fact" is not defined by the bill. Pro-lifers fear that an Attorney General could interpret this to require PRCs to provide information on how to obtain abortions.

Further, the bill empowers the Attorney General to launch investigations whenever he "believes it to be in the public interest that an investigation should be made to ascertain whether a limited services pregnancy center has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in, any practice declared to be unlawful by the Act." No evidence or complaint is required.

People who have never been clients or patients would also be empowered to file lawsuits against PRCs. The bill does not provide for the recovery of attorney fees when a lawsuit is brought against a PRC in bad faith.

Even before charges are pressed, the legislation allows the Attorney General to request a court order to "impound" records while the investigation continues. The Catholic Conference of Illinois has expressed fears that investigations could be endless, forcing PRCs to close.

If found guilty, PRCs could face fines of $50,000.

Click here to read more.

Judge Reinstates Florida Ban on Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

On March 7, US District Judge Robert L Hinkle reinstated Florida's 2016 law prohibiting state tax dollars from going to organizations that perform abortions.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody argued in a motion that because the permanent injunction blocking the pro-life law was based on the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, the injunction should be lifted.

"Now that the case at the center of the [district] court’s reasoning has been overturned," Moody wrote. "We are petitioning the court to vacate the court’s injunction and allow the will of our state’s legislative body and the people who elected them to take effect."

Hinkle agreed with Moody's argument, issuing a decision to end the injunction.

Click here to read more.

Montana Judge Blocks Parental Consent Law, Allows Parental Notification

A Montana Judge issued a ruling permanently blocking Montana's state law requiring minors under the age of 16 to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion. The judge allowed a parental notification law to remain in force pending a court decision.

District Court Judge Christ Abbott wrote in his decision that the Montana state constitution's right to privacy renders the parental consent law unconstitutional and unenforceable.

“Minors can abstain from consuming alcohol or getting a tattoo with little effect on their futures, but the same cannot be said of keeping a pregnancy or having an abortion,” Judge Abbott wrote according to the Daily Montanan. “There are few decisions with higher or longer-lasting stakes in life than whether to become or stay pregnant, and even fewer (if any) with equally profound spiritual, physical, mental, social, and economic considerations. The complexity of the dilemma only reinforces its individuality and therefore its place at the core of personal privacy.”

The parental notification and consent requirements stemmed from a 2012 ballot measure in which 66% of Montana voters approved legislation requiring parental notification. Before legislators passed that bill into law, they changed it to further require parental consent with signatures. Pro-lifers in the state argue that this was necessary because abortion businesses instructed minors to send notification letters to fake addresses.

Click here to read more.

North Carolina Lawsuit Claims FDA Guidance Trumps State Abortion Pill Regulations

Pro-life lawmakers in North Carolina are defending a pro-life law from an abortionist whose lawsuit argues states cannot regulate abortion any more than FDA guidance does.

North Carolina's pro-life law requires a 72-hour waiting period for women receiving the abortion pill, and it requires that it be dispensed in person (rather than through the mail). Under the Biden administration, the FDA ended a regulatory policy that similarly required the abortion pill to be administered in-person.

Dr. Amy Bryant, an abortionist, sued to block the law; arguing that North Carolina's regulations violated the US Constitution's supremacy clause by contradicting the FDA's guidance.

Pro-Abortion North Carolina AG John Stein (D) refused to defend the law in court, saying that he agreed with Bryant's argument. North Carolina law grants legal standing to the speaker of the house and president pro-tempore, however. Last month, both legislators filed a motion to defend the law in court.

The pro-life lawmakers point to Dobbs v. Jackson as evidence that states have broad authority to write and enforce laws regarding abortion.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life OB-GYN Association Banned from Educational OB-GYN Conference

Incoming AAPLOG CEO Dr. Christina Francis

The American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs (AAPLOG) is speaking out after it was banned from an annual educational conference hosted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

ACOG is known to have pro-abortion tendencies, but AAPLOG has been allowed to have an exhibit at the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) and the Association of Professors of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (APGO) for 15 years.

According to AAPLOG CEO-elect Dr. Christina Francis, her organization was not notified that they were banned from the conference until after they arrived in Maryland to attend.

“We found out not from the person who had made the decision, or even anybody from ACOG, but from their third-party vendor,” Francis told LiveAction. “A vendor said he was instructed by ACOG to notify us that our booth was cancelled, and to refund us our money.”

“The conference is meant to be — which is why it was such a big deal — for those who are educating medical students and residents and OB/GYNs,” Francis said. “So they are responsible, largely, for the education of the next generation of OB/GYNs in this country. So it’s a really important conference, just because the things that are presented at this conference, and learned at this conference, then go out to all of these residency programs and medical school rotations across the country.”

She noted, “[ACOG] also filed a brief in support of the defendants in the lawsuit we are a plaintiff on, against the FDA over Mifeprex. I don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but these are the questions we wanted to ask.”

Mifeprex (mifepristone) is the first drug used in the abortion pill regimen. AAPLOG's lawsuit challenges the FDA's approval of the pill in 2000; arguing that the approval process is "deeply flawed" and the drug is unsafe.

Francis went to social media to voice her disappointment and challenge ACOG CEO Maureen Phipps to a debate about "the impact of elective abortion on the health of women."

“I will meet her anytime, any place so that we can present both sides of this issue and allow not only the general public but also the next generation of physicians to decide for themselves what the evidence supports,” Francis said in a video message posted to Twitter on Feb. 27.

ACOG Senior Manager of Media Relations and Communications Rachel Kingery told CNA that the ACOG did not plan to respond to Francis's video on Twitter.

Click here to read more.