US District Court Rejects Satanic Temple's Challenge to Texas Abortion Law

This week, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas rejected a lawsuit by The Satanic Temple challenging pro-life informed consent laws on religious grounds.

The temple's complaint argued that pro-life laws infringed upon the religious freedom rights of Satanists who believe abortion is a religious ritual. The laws in question include a waiting-period law and a law that requires pregnant mothers to be given the opportunity to hear the baby's heartbeat and see the baby's ultrasound image.

“SB 8’s ban on abortions after six weeks infringes upon our members’ rights to engage with their chosen religion and to participate in religious rites and rituals,” the Satanic Temple’s Director of Campaign Operations, Erin Helian, claimed in a statement when they filed the amended lawsuit. “In accordance with our Third Tenet, The Satanic Temple will push back against the Texas legislature’s violation of our members’ bodily autonomy and freedom of choice.”

The court described the lawsuit as "cryptic" and noted that the challenge lacked basic facts about the plaintiff "Ann Doe's" legal standing to sue.

This case bears a resemblance to a separate challenge by pro-abortion groups challenging Indiana's pro-life law protecting children from abortion at all gestational ages. Rather than the First Amendment, the Indiana challenge invokes Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act; arguing that the pro-life law oppresses religions that allow abortion.

Click here to read more.

Abortion Rights Amendment to Appear on Ohio Ballot

On July 5, pro-abortion groups in Ohio submitted over 700,000 signatures to place an amendment creating a right to abortion on the November ballot. If successful, the proposed amendment would enshrine abortion rights into Ohio's state constitution.

Supporters of the amendment submitted 710,131 signatures in support of the amendment. Ohio law required 413,487 to place it on the ballot. The excess signatures were collected to account for errors that could cause some signatures to not count.

The pro-abortion groups allied in support of the amendment include Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

“The ACLU’s radical amendment would allow for abortion until birth with no protections for the preborn,” said Peter Range, CEO of Ohio Right to Life. “Additionally, it would eliminate parental rights and notification laws if you have a teenage daughter who is being pressured into an abortion or even a sex change operation.”

Click here to read more.

Proposed Amendment to NY Constitution would Create Right to Abortion

New York Gov Kathy Hochul (D)

Pro-abortion groups are advocating for an amendment to New York's state constitution that would create a right to abortion. A proposed 2024 ballot measure would amend the state constitution to prevent New York from enforcing any laws restricting abortion.

Axios reports that "New Yorkers for Equal Rights" plans to raise $20 million to spend on "TV and digital ads, direct mail programs, grassroots organizing and voter education."

Axios reported that New Yorkers for Equal Rights is partnering with pro-abortion politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Gov. Kathy Hochul. The group is also partnering with Planned Parenthood, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP.

Click here to read more.

Happy Independence Day!

 

Indiana Supreme Court Overturns Injunction Blocking Pro-Life Law

On June 30, the Indiana Supreme Court vacated an injunction blocking Indiana's law protecting unborn children from abortion at all gestational ages. The law contains exceptions for rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, or when the child is diagnosed with a fatal anomaly.

County Judge Kelsey B Hanlon imposed the temporary injunction last September, arguing that the law violates the Indiana constitution's privacy protections. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Derek R. Molter wrote that the pro-life law adheres to the state constitution's requirements due to its exceptions. He wrote that the Indiana constitution, “protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but the General Assembly otherwise retains broad legislative discretion for determining whether and the extent to which to prohibit abortions.”

The Indiana Supreme Court also wrote that the abortion businesses challenging the law “cannot show a reasonable likelihood of success” arguing that the entire law is unconstitutional.

A separate challenge claims that the law violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This challenge claims that abortion can be a religious ritual, and it oppresses those whose religions allow abortion. The RFRA challenge is moving forward as a class action lawsuit. If this challenge is successful, the law would not apply to women who say their religion permits abortion.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Drops Lawsuit Against Pro-Life Kentucky Laws

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R)

Last Week, Kentucky Planned Parenthood and the ACLU dropped its lawsuit challenging two pro-life laws in the state. One of these laws protects unborn children from abortion if they have a detectable heartbeat (six weeks). The other law is a trigger law protecting the unborn from abortion upon the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled last year that Planned Parenthood had no legal standing to challenge the law. It reinstated the protective laws and told Planned Parenthood that it must find a woman who was harmed by the law to continue. The pro-abortion groups failed to find such a plaintiff before the Supreme Court's deadline.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron wrote in a press release,

“A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable—especially the unborn. Today is a reminder that every life deserves to live. My office will always defend and enforce Kentucky’s pro-life laws passed by our General Assembly. We are gratified that the abortion providers recognized their case should be dismissed. As a result of our efforts, I am proud to say that the elective abortion industry is out of business in Kentucky, and their inhumane practice remains illegal in our Commonwealth.”

Kentucky Planned Parenthood Director Tamarra Wieder said the abortion business hopes to challenge the law again if a woman ever steps forward to stand as a plaintiff. “Just because we didn’t meet a deadline, doesn’t mean we hold these laws to be just.”

Click here to read more.

Michigan Abortionist Runs Over Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselor

On the morning of June 23, Michigan abortionist Theodore Roummel ran over pro-life sidewalk counselor Mark Zimmerman outside the Women's Center of Saginaw.

Zimmerman told Live Action News, “I was standing in the driveway and the abortionist ran over my leg [using his vehicle],” he said. “And then he had to reverse to get off my leg, so he ran me over twice.” He suffered a broken leg.

The sidewalk counselor's friends started a GiveSendGo campaign to help pay for Zimmerman's expenses caused by the injury. The description states, 

"Mark suffered a broken leg from the attack and will have to have surgery to repair the fracture. At this time, we are raising funds to help with the medical bills for Mark and possible attorney fees as he considers legal action against the abortionist.

What is deeply cruel and callous about this situation, according to witnesses, is that the abortionist got out of his vehicle after the attack and laughed at Mark as he lay injured on the ground. This particular abortionist has a repeated history of making threating comments, pulling into the driveway at reckless speeds in order to intimidate people, and swerving toward people who are standing on the public easement, the curb, or the edge of the clinic driveway behind a designated line (where people are legally permitted to stand)."

In an interview with Live Action News, Zimmerman also said the abortionist laughed after running over his leg. “He parked his car and came over when the police came, and was screaming at the police about how we always run in front of him — we don’t,” Zimmerman continued. “But I have four witnesses who saw what happened. So they gave a statement to police, and he was not arrested. He went about and finished his day by doing five abortions.”

Live Action News also reported that Roummel was previously arrested for attempting to hit Pro-Life Michigan Director Lynn Mills with his vehicle.

Click here to read more.

US Senators Introduce Four Pro-Abortion Bills

Pro-abortion legislators in the US Senate introduced several sure-to-fail bills in hopes of making a statement against pro-lifers.

The senators plan to call for a vote with "unanimous consent." The procedure allows a single senator to call a bill to a vote, but the vote fails if a single senator objects.

Sen. Patty Murray (D) said, “Senate Democrats will force Republicans to go on the record once again, and explain to the American people why they refuse to codify our right to contraception, why they refuse to let women travel across state lines for lifesaving health care.”

The bills include the "Right to Contraception Act," the "Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act," and the "UPHOLD Privacy Act." These bills are not designed to increase contraception, health care, or privacy as their titles suggest. They are designed to protect abortion.

The "Right to Contraception Act" would broaden the legal definition of contraceptives to the point that chemical abortion drugs are included. The new definition would include products "intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs." This bill would also use taxpayer dollars to provide funding for places where "contraceptives" are provided.

The "Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act" would make abortionists immune to state laws restricting abortion.

The "UPHOLD Privacy Act" prevents records from abortions from being used in criminal investigations. This would require abortion businesses to hide documentation from courts if an abortionist is tried for ending the life of an unborn child.

Click here to read more.

Biden Signs Executive Order to Expand Access to Abortion-Inducing "Emergency Contraceptives"

On Friday, in anticipation of the first anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson, President Joe Biden signed an executive order designed to increase access to contraceptives. This includes so-called "emergency contraceptives" which can induce abortion by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a mother's uterus.

The order federal agencies to:

• consider guidelines that would require private health insurance companies to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost-sharing

• consider actions to increase access to contraceptives over the counter

• consider actions to offer more coverage for contraceptives through Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D

• consider actions to expand coverage for "family planning services and supplies" through Medicaid

• consider actions that would increase access to contraception through government-funded health plans for veterans, federal workers, private employees, and students

• research additional ways to expand access to contraceptives through other methods

Click here to read more.

New Hawaii Law Loosens Assisted Suicide Regulations

On June 1, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation that will loosen regulations on assisted suicide in the state.

The new rules allow advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) to evaluate patients for assisted suicide. Before, only doctors could do so. Additionally, the new rules shorten the waiting period to receive lethal drugs from 20 days to 5. The waiting period can be as short as 48 hours if the APRN determines the patient would die within 5 days.

“There aren’t many physicians that would help the patient to make that choice,” Hawaii Sen. Joy San Buenaventura said. “So, by increasing the ability of a patient to have an APRN prescribing is helpful. We also shortened the waiting time, because doctors, understandably, are not going to give the prescription drugs unless they know death is imminent. And patients need to get the prescription earlier to relieve them from the suffering, so we reduced the waiting time from 20 days to five days.”

The practice of assisted suicide allows medical professionals to prey on the vulnerable and suffering. Laws like Hawaii's pressure patients into suicide rather than options like palliative care.

It's become a trend that states shorten waiting periods a few years after legalizing assisted suicide. Similar laws were passed in Washington and California within the last year.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Reinstates South Carolina Policy to Blocking Planned Parenthood from Medicaid Funding

The US Supreme Court threw out a court order by a district court preventing South Carolina from enforcing an executive order to stop state Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court's ruling sends the case back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration.

“I am pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today and look forward to the Fourth Circuit thoughtfully reconsidering its previous ruling,” said Gov. McMaster. “Just as I was when I issued Executive Order No. 2018-21, I remain confident in South Carolina’s authority to administer its Medicaid program and the decision to terminate Planned Parenthood’s funding. I am hopeful that the Fourth Circuit will recognize that Congress did not intend to give Medicaid recipients the ability to force States to subsidize abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.”

South Carolina is also facing a separate court battle regarding its new heartbeat law. A district judge denied Planned Parenthood's request to put that law on hold while proceedings continue. The case has been fast-tracked to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Click here to read more.

Planned Parenthood Illinois Reports 54% Increase in Abortions Since Dobbs

Planned Parenthood Illinois told News Channel 20 that it has committed 54% more abortions in the year since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The abortion giant further said that much of the increase can be attributed to those traveling from other states. Planned Parenthood reported that women traveled from 34 other states to obtain abortions within the last year. Planned Parenthood Illinois's percentage of patients from other states increased from 7% to 25% during that time.

"We are seeing people from places as far away as Texas and Florida, where they have nothing, no access in between their home state and Illinois. Imagine having to travel hundreds of miles to get the care that you need," Brigid Leahy, of Planned Parenthood Illinois told News Channel 20.

Women facing difficult or unexpected pregnancies deserve care, but not abortion. Abortion does not care for the mother or her child. It provides death, not health. Pro-lifers in all states, including Illinois, should continue working to provide life-affirming options for women in difficult situations. Women traveling from other states should be made aware of these options so their children are protected.

Planned Parenthood also reported that the percentage of abortions it committed after 16 weeks increased from 8% to 13%.

Click here to read more.

Biden HHS Withholds $4.5 Million in Title X Funding to Oklahoma Due to Pro-Life Laws

On May 24, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was rescinding $4.5 million in Title X funding from the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH). Biden's HHS told the OSDH that the state's policies are "out of compliance" due to "technical inconsistencies with HHS rules." Lawmakers and pro-life groups argue the move is a brazen attempt to punish Oklahoma for its pro-life policies.

Children are protected from abortion in Oklahoma except in cases when the mother's life is in danger. Additionally, the OSDH does not refer women for elective abortions. The latter point was highlighted by US Sen James Lankford (R) in a joint letter from Oklahoma's congressional delegation to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The delegation demanded immediate reinstallation of the Title X grant, arguing that the HHS was "discriminating against OSDH for refusing to refer for abortions."

"Section 1008 of the Public Health Services Act, which authorizes Title X grant funding, explicitly prohibits funds from being‘used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.’The same sentiment is reiterated each year as a condition of Title X appropriations, which states that Title X funds‘shall not be expended for abortions.’Nevertheless, HHS has chosen to prioritize abortion instead of prioritizing actual health care, by suspending Title X funding awarded to OSDH because of its obligation to abide by federal law and the state laws of Oklahoma. It is absurd that HHS is suspending funds previously granted to OSDH for its refusal to refer for a procedure that the underlying federal statute explicitly forbids...

Abortion is not family planning; it is family destruction. Every abortion takes an unborn child’s life. Oklahoma’s laws protect women and unborn children from the violence of abortion in the interest of promoting families, keeping Oklahomans safe, and protecting life. OSDH’s decision to follow federal and state law by protecting unborn life and seeking the welfare of individual patients and their families is a noble one. OPA’s determination of noncompliance is jeopardizing the health care of Oklahomans and has no legitimate legal foundation. Rather, HHS is interpreting laws and regulations through a political lens and ignoring clear parameters of the statutes enacted by Congress.

Oklahomans rely on OSDH’s family planning program for Title X family planning services including cancer screenings, pregnancy prevention, STI diagnostics and treatment, breast exams, and depression screenings and referrals, among a multitude of other services. OPA’s decision to suspend OSDH’s award will severely limit Oklahoman’s access to these services. In doing this, HHS is disregarding one of its own stated goals to ‘protect and strengthen equitable access to high quality and affordable health care.’

HHS cannot simply will words to mean what they do not; we are a country governed by the rule of law. When the law says ’no funds,’ Congress really means ‘no funds.’"

Click here to read more.

Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Heartbeat Law

On June 16, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a 3-3 ruling to uphold a lower court's decision to block the state's 2018 law prohibiting abortion after six weeks gestation.

The 2018 law was blocked by a district court, and its ruling was affirmed in 2019 by the Iowa Supreme Court. Their decision involved an interpretation that the Iowa Constitution created a right to abortion, but that interpretation (and Roe v. Wade) has since been overturned. Those rulings prompted Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) to ask the court to reinstate the pro-life law.

Justice Thomas Waterman wrote on behalf of the justices who voted against reinstating the law, “In our view it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it in effect.”

He further wrote that the ruling was procedural, and Iowa could legally enforce an identical law if it was passed today.

“To say that today’s lack of action by the Iowa Supreme Court is a disappointment is an understatement.”  Gov. Reynolds said in a press release.

“Not only does it disregard Iowa voters who elected representatives willing to stand up for the rights of unborn children, but it has sided with a single judge in a single county who struck down Iowa’s legislation based on principles that now have been flat-out rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no fundamental right to abortion and any law restricting it should be reviewed on a rational basis standard – a fact acknowledged today by three of the justices. Still, without an affirmative decision, there is no justice for the unborn. 

“But the fight is not over. There is no right more sacred than life, and nothing more worthy of our strongest defense than the innocent unborn. We are reviewing our options in preparation for continuing the fight.”

Click here to read more.

Texas Governor Signs Changes to "10-Day Rule"

On June 14, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed legislation to reform Texas's controversial "10-Day Rule" allowing hospital committees (often called "death panels" by outsiders) to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients.

Before the new changes, Texas law allowed hospitals to withdraw treatment for any reason, including a perceived low "quality of life." After providing ten days notice to family members, the hospital can remove life-sustaining treatment such as ventilators. Family members can use that time to try and find another hospital willing to provide treatment, but they must do so in a high-pressure situation with a short deadline.

The law made national news in recent years when the mother of Tinslee Lewis filed a lawsuit to protect her daughter from denial of treatment by Cook's Children's Hospital. Tinslee was born premature with a condition that caused her heart to press against her lungs. On April 7, 2022, after over 800 days of fighting the hospital in court, Tinslee was healthy enough to go home.

The new legislation takes steps to improve Texas's countdown law, but it leaves many aspects in place. It extends the countdown from ten days to 25 days, prohibits hospitals from withdrawing treatment based on a patient's "quality of life," prohibits hospitals from imposing countdowns on competent patients, and requires hospitals to perform procedures necessary to facilitate a patient transfer before imposing a countdown.

Texas Right to Life argues that patients will still be in danger until legislators eliminate the countdown law altogether, improve laws to protect disabled patients from discrimination, and guarantee impartial review by a judge.

The "25-Day Rule" is set to take effect on September 1, 2023.

Click here to read more.

American Medical Association Rejects Resolution to Protect Babies who Survive Abortion

This week in Chicago, delegates at an annual meeting of the American Medical Association voted down a resolution for the AMA to “advocate for availability of the highest standard of neonatal care to [an] aborted fetus born alive at a gestational age of viability.”

Self-described "pro-choice" Dr. Thomas Eppes introduced the resolution. "This position is not to argue the woman's right to choose ... The decision to abort is still between the patient and the physician," Eppes said. "It does not imply the woman's responsibility for the fetal life, but this resolution places the burden of care on the physician, who now has to care for two patients once the fetus is viable."

“Eppes was the only person who spoke in favor of the resolution, which was voted down 476 to 106,” MedPage reported.

"Our policy should be based on science, it should be based on fact, and it should be based on the best available evidence that honors and upholds the value of the patient-physician relationship and the nuance and complexity of medical care," responded Kavita Rora, MD. She spoke on behalf of the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "It is not a one-size-fits-all approach and should not be based on misinformation or disinformation. I strongly urge you to oppose."

Arora was the only speaker who spoke in opposition to the resolution. She did not offer an explanation as to what parts of Eppes's argument were based on "misinformation or disinformation."

Click here to read more.

Fifth Circuit Judge Frustrated at FDA's Delay in Presenting Mifepristone Research Documents

During oral arguments last week in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod expressed annoyance at the federal government's failure to produce documents regarding the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

The case concerns an over-20-year-old complaint from doctors arguing that President Bill Clinton's administration unlawfully fast-tracked the approval of mifepristone with a process intended to approve treatments for life-threatening illnesses. The FDA was required to respond to the complaint within 180 days, but the process has dragged on for decades. As the FDA still fails to provide relevant documents concerning its approval of mifepristone, many pro-lifers argue that it is still stonewalling this process.

Judge Elrod questioned Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sarah Harrington, legal counsel for the FDA, about when it could produce the necessary documents.

“So how soon can we get the record?” Judge asked Harrington, saying it “seems like something we would want to know about.”

“I can go back and talk to my clients. I don’t think it's going to be imminent,” Harrington responded.

Judge Elrod then asked in an annoyed tone, “Can you produce it in stages if you can’t produce it all at once? Is it a secret? I mean it’s the record, right?”

“It’s not a secret, it’s like in cold storage somewhere,” the Harrington said.

“But – I mean you’ve probably have brought it out of storage by now because you have a big national case on it,” Judge Elrod said.

“I know it’s frustrating,” Harrington said, “I don’t have anything more specific to tell you,” Harrington said.

Click here to read more.

Abortionists File Lawsuit Challenging Kansas "Woman's Right to Know" Act

A group of Kansas abortion businesses filed a lawsuit challenging Kansas's new law requiring informed consent for women considering abortions.

Kansas's "Woman's Right to Know" Act requires abortion businesses to provide the following information to abortion-minded women:

• she can change her mind and withdraw consent to the abortion

• whether the abortion business has received any disciplinary action by the state medical board

• she has a 24-hour period think before going through with the abortion

• a complete list of medical risks and potential complications

• she has a right to view her ultrasound and/or hear the child's heartbeat at no additional expense

• the child's gestational age

• Abortion pill reversal (APR) can be used to reverse the effects of the abortion pill mifepristone if taken soon enough. This method can save the child's life if the mother changes her mind after taking mifepristone.

Click here to read more.

District Judge Hears Pro-Abortion Arguments Against Abortion Pill Regulations

On June 8, US District Judge Robert S. Ballou heard arguments from abortion businesses asking him to suspend FDA regulations governing the use of the abortion pill mifepristone.

Attorneys representing abortion clinics in Kansas, Montana, and Virginia asked Ballou to force the FDA to drop Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) regulations that have placed limitations on mifepristone since it was approved 23 years ago. While the lawsuit proceeds, the abortion businesses asked the court to place an injunction against the FDA to prevent further restrictions.

This is a stark contrast to a separate lawsuit that was recently sent back to the 5th Circuit by the US Supreme Court. In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, pro-life plaintiffs argued that the FDA unlawfully fast-tracked the approval of mifepristone through a process intended for drugs treating life-threatening illnesses. The FDA has stonewalled official complaints challenging the approval process for over 20 years.

In a third case, District Judge Thomas Rice issued an injunction preventing the FDA from "altering" the availability of mifepristone in 17 pro-abortion states.

Conflicting decisions could result in a need for the Supreme Court to make a ruling.

Click here to read more.

Sidewalk Counselor Sues to Challenge Colorado Buffer Zone Law

On June 1, Wendy Faustin filed a lawsuit against Colorado and the cities of Denver and Englewood over laws and ordinances that limit pro-life speech by creating "buffer zones" around abortion businesses.

Faustin's lawsuit argues that buffer zone laws violate her First Amendment rights. She desires to have "close, personal conversations" with women who enter and leave abortion businesses, but Colorado law and city ordinances prevent her from doing this.

Roger Byron of the First Liberty Institute represents Faustin in her lawsuit. In a statement to the press, Byron said, “The government may not target life-affirming speech simply because it disagrees with the message. That is unlawful viewpoint discrimination. It should not be a crime to lovingly and compassionately approach another person to tell them about alternatives to abortion.”

Colorado's buffer zone law prevents individuals from approaching within eight feet of patients near a healthcare facility without consent “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill, to displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way or sidewalk area.”

“Distributing leaflets discussing abortion, its risks and implications, and its alternatives is core expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” the complaint states. “Orally discussing abortion, its risks and implications, and its alternatives with persons entering an abortion clinic is core expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

The 1993 law was upheld by the US Supreme Court 23 years ago, but Faustin hopes the overturn of Roe v. Wade will also help her overturn Colorado's buffer zone law.

Click here to read more.