The Jim Bakker Show

ACLU and Kentucky’s only abortion clinic sue over ultrasound law

By Steve Bittenbender

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union sued Kentucky state officials on Monday to block a new law that requires women seeking an abortion to first undergo an ultrasound and hear a description of the embryo or fetus.

ACLU lawyers filed the lawsuit in federal court in Louisville on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center, which the lawsuit said is the sole licensed abortion facility in Kentucky.

The requirement violates the speech rights of doctors and patients by forcing them to deliver and listen to a government-mandated message, the lawsuit argues. The surgical center is asking for a temporary restraining order and a permanent declaration that the law is unconstitutional.

The law is part of a renewed effort by abortion opponents nationwide to restrict the procedure. It was passed on Saturday by the Kentucky General Assembly, where Republicans swept to power after taking the state House for the first time in nearly a century, and signed on Monday by Governor Matt Bevin, also a Republican.

Bevin, in a statement on Monday, defended the law and several other recently passed measures as representing a new day for Kentucky. He said the measures would “protect our most vulnerable.”

The law requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman may view the images. The medical staff will also be required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible.

It does not contain exceptions for women who are facing medical complications or are victims of rape or incest. Lawmakers inserted an emergency clause allowing it to take effect immediately upon Bevin’s signature.

The lawsuit accuses lawmakers of “forcibly co-opting and perverting the informed consent process.”

While the bill received overwhelming support in both chambers of Kentucky’s legislature, even some of its supporters questioned whether the state risked a lawsuit.

Some 25 states have laws regarding ultrasounds and abortions, but only three states require medical staff to display and describe the images, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit group focusing on health issues.

Republicans have acted swiftly in their first week with majorities in the Kentucky legislature. Other measures they passed include prohibiting abortions after a pregnancy has reached 20 weeks, making Kentucky the 27th “right-to-work” state and allowing the governor to overhaul the University of Louisville’s board of trustees.

(Reporting by Steve Bittenbender; Editing by David Ingram and Lisa Shumaker)

Kentucky moves toward requiring ultrasound before abortion

By Steve Bittenbender

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (Reuters) – Kentucky’s new Republican House majority took the first step on Thursday toward requiring women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, acting swiftly to capitalize on winning control of the chamber for the first time in almost a century.

The 83-12 vote on the bill came on the third day of the state’s 2017 General Assembly session, the first in which the Republican Party has led the House of Representatives since 1921.

The bill requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman may view the images. The medical staff will be required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible.

Sponsors say the bill will better protect the health of women and provide the materials necessary for women to make an informed choice. Abortion rights advocates contend such laws are designed to frighten and shame those seeking an abortion.

While Kentucky’s bill passed easily, some supporters criticized the new House leadership for pushing the legislation through so quickly that it might open the state to a lawsuit if,

as expected, the bill becomes law.

“I think that had we had a chance to discuss this bill, we might have come up with something that was not going to open this state up to millions of dollars in litigation” costs, said Democratic state Representative Angie Hatton.

The state’s Republican-controlled Senate passed another measure that would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. After passing the ultrasound bill, the House approved two measures strongly opposed by labor groups. The first was a proposal that would allow workers in union shops to receive union benefits without having to pay dues, The second measure would repeal prevailing wage laws Republicans say add expenses to state and local construction projects.

Leaders in both chambers plan to meet this weekend to pass bills to be sent to Republican Governor Matt Bevin for approval, House Republican Caucus spokeswoman Daisy Olivo said.

(Reporting by Steve Bittenbender; Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Peter Cooney)

Texas moves to cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood

By Jon Herskovitz

AUSTIN, Texas, Dec 21 (Reuters) – Texas plans to block about $3 million in Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood operations in the state, according to a legal document obtained on Wednesday, a move the reproductive healthcare group said could affect nearly 11,000 low-income people.

Planned Parenthood said it would seek court help to block the funding halt, which would cut cancer screenings, birth control, HIV testing and other programs.

Planned Parenthood gets about $500 million annually in federal funds, largely in reimbursements through Medicaid, which provides health coverage to millions of low-income Americans.

Texas and several other Republican-controlled states have tried to cut the organization’s funding after an anti-abortion group released videos last year that it said showed officials from Planned Parenthood negotiating prices for fetal tissues from abortions it performs.

Texas sent a final termination notice to Planned Parenthood in the state on Tuesday to alert it of the funding cut, the document showed, saying the basis of the termination was the videos.

Planned Parenthood has denied wrongdoing, saying the videos were heavily edited and that it does not profit from fetal tissue donation. It has challenged similar defunding efforts in other states, calling them politically motivated.

Republican President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, and at least 14 states have tried to pass legislation or taken administration action to prevent the organization from receiving federal Title X funding.

“Texas is a cautionary tale for the rest of the nation,” Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement. “With this action, the state is doubling down on reckless policies that have been absolutely devastating for women.”

The Texas governor’s office was not immediately available for comment. The state investigated Planned Parenthood over the videos. A grand jury in January cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing and indicted the anti-abortion activists who made the videos for tampering with government records.

About a year ago, the Texas health department cut funding to a Houston Planned Parenthood affiliate for a nearly three-decade-old HIV prevention program. The contract was federally funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but managed by the state.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law

(Reuters) – A federal judge on Thursday sided with women’s health provider Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit aiming to block a Mississippi law that barred medical providers that perform abortions from participating in the state’s Medicaid program.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan III is the latest in a string of rulings striking down similar laws elsewhere in the country against the women’s health provider.

Jordan’s two page order noted a ruling from the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals that rejected a similar law in Louisiana, saying “essentially every court to consider similar laws has found that they violate” federal law.

Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor run jointly by the federal government and individual states.

Planned Parenthood said in its complaint that the law, which went into effect in July, unconstitutionally limited patients’ rights to choose the healthcare provider of their choice and would have stopped it from serving low-income patients.

“Yet another court has said it is unacceptable for politicians to dictate where women can go for their health care,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood will fight for our patients at every turn.”

Mississippi’s Republican Governor, Phil Bryant, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying in a statement on Facebook: “I believe the law was the right thing to do and I will continue to stand with the legislature and people of Mississippi who do not want their hard-earned money going to the largest abortion provider in the nation.”

Mississippi was among many states adopting new abortion laws as conservatives have sought to chip away at the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

In August, a federal judge prevented Ohio from cutting federal taxpayer funding from 28 Planned Parenthood clinics in the state, setting back the governor’s hopes of stopping the women’s health services group from providing abortions.

(Reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)

Key justice Kennedy wavers as Supreme Court confronts abortion

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A closely divided Supreme Court struggled with its biggest abortion case in years on Wednesday, with pivotal Justice Anthony Kennedy voicing concerns about a restrictive Texas law yet stopping short of signaling he would strike it down.

The court’s four liberal justices indicated they believed the law, which imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings, intrudes on a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in a 1973 ruling.

Conservative justices including Kennedy expressed doubt during the 85-minute oral argument about claims by abortion providers who asserted that the Republican-backed 2013 law forced numerous clinics to shut down.

Kennedy at one point suggested sending the case back to a lower court to get further evidence on the law’s impact, including an assessment of the ability of existing Texas clinics to meet the demand for abortions.

If there is evidence new clinics that meet the state’s regulations have increased capacity to perform abortions, it would show the law has provided a “beneficial effect,” Kennedy said.

The outcome appeared to be in the hands of Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close rulings. In past abortion cases, he has backed a fundamental right to abortion while supporting some restrictions.

The court was shorthanded with only eight justices following the Feb. 13 death of conservative Antonin Scalia, leaving the liberals and conservatives evenly divided.

The best that supporters of the law could hope for would be a 4-4 split that would let stand a lower-court ruling that affirmed the Texas regulations but set no nationwide legal precedent on whether other states could enact similar measures.

However, a such ruling leaving the Texas law intact could encourage other states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws.

Kennedy gave little indication he would be willing to uphold the law in full, as his three conservative colleagues would be expected to do. If Kennedy sides with the court’s four liberals, the court could either send the case back to the lower court or strike it down.

A ruling is due by the end of June. A decision sending the case to a lower court could mean the dispute might not be resolved for years.

Some justices questioned the lack of evidence on why specific clinics closed after the law was passed, which could be addressed if new legal proceedings take place. Abortion providers assert that the law caused 22 of 41 clinics to close, but the state contests those numbers.

“What is the evidence in the record that the closures are related to the legislation?” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Texas contends the law, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor, protects women’s health. The abortion providers who have challenged it assert that the regulations are aimed at shutting down their clinics.

MEDICALLY INDUCED ABORTIONS

In a sign that he was not comfortable with aspects of the law, Kennedy sounded concerned about a possible increase in surgical abortions prompted in part by the state’s separate new restrictions on medically induced abortions, in which women take pills to terminate a pregnancy. Kennedy said that “this law has really increased the number of surgical procedures as opposed to medical procedures, and that this may not be medically wise.”

Abortion rights advocates say surgical abortions increased because of the delays women seeking an abortion faced as a result of the 2013 law.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the need for a provision of the law requiring clinics to have costly, hospital-grade facilities, when abortions almost always are low-risk procedures for the woman.

“What was the problem the legislature was responding to that it needed to improve the facilities for women’s health?” Ginsburg asked.

The Texas law requires abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges,” a type of formal affiliation, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. Abortion providers say the provision already has forced clinics to close because such an affiliation is hard to obtain.

The abortion providers also challenged a provision, not yet in effect, requiring clinics to have hospital-grade facilities with standards for corridor width, plumbing, parking spaces, room size, the spacing of beds and many other attributes.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito indicated support for the regulations and referred to evidence that abortion facilities in Texas “have been cited for really appalling violations when they were inspected: holes in the floor where rats could come in, the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments.”

The Supreme Court’s last major abortion ruling came in 2007 when it upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. But abortion remains a disputed issue in the United States, as it does in many countries, and some states have passed laws aiming to place a variety of restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.

The court is considering the Texas case in the midst of the heated campaign ahead of the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic and Clarece Polke; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court hears high-stakes Texas abortion case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a major abortion case focusing on whether a Texas law that imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings interferes with the constitutional right of a woman to end her pregnancy.

Eight justices were on the bench as arguments began in the case, not the usual nine. The Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who opposed abortion and backed restrictions on it, means the court no longer has five conservatives who might support more restrictive abortion regulations nationwide.

The court potentially could split 4-4, with its four liberal justices opposing the abortion restrictions and its four conservatives backing the regulations, an action that would let stand a lower-court ruling that affirmed the Texas law but would not set a nationwide legal precedent.

The state contends the Republican-backed 2013 law protects women’s health. The abortion providers who have challenged it assert that it is aimed at shutting down their clinics.

The court has not ruled in an abortion case since 2007. The Texas case represents a high-stakes constitutional test for a strategic shift that abortion opponents have taken in recent years: to apply restrictive regulations to abortion doctors and facilities rather than try to ban the procedure outright.

Activists on both sides of the issue gathered outside the courthouse on a chilly, blustery day.

Among the hundreds of demonstrators was Taylor Crumpton, who came from rural Texas to protest against the Texas law, saying “every single abortion clinic I’ve ever seen or known has been shut down.”

“This pro-life culture has just erupted in Texas and dehumanized women who even want to have an abortion,” she said.

Annie Piper, a student at Liberty University, a Christian college in Lynchburg, Virginia, voiced support for the law.

“These actually are laws that are trying to help women,” Piper said. “A lot of abortion clinics don’t have the resources to provide proper care for women, so all our legislators are doing is making sure women get safe and proper healthcare.”

ALL EYES ON KENNEDY

There is a chance that conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, could join the liberals for a majority invalidating the law, or parts of it. Kennedy in past cases has supported a fundamental right to abortion but has endorsed restrictions including bans on a late-term abortion procedure.

The Texas law requires abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care.

Abortion providers say the provision already has prompted clinics to close because this formal hospital affiliation is difficult for clinic doctors to obtain.

The abortion providers also are challenging provisions in the law, not yet in effect, that mandate that clinics have costly, hospital-grade facilities.

The Supreme Court found a constitutional right to end a pregnancy in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case. That decision was affirmed in 1992, as the justices ruled that any regulation must not impose an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.

At issue in Wednesday’s case is whether the Texas requirements violate that principle by putting a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman before a fetus becomes viable.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Outside the white marble courthouse, there were dueling chants of “Pro women, pro life” and “Stop the sham” as anti-abortion and abortion-rights demonstrators faced off.

At one point, anti-abortion protesters linked arms to block abortion-rights protesters, forming a protective circle around speakers during a rally. Some sang a religious hymn, “Spirit of the Living God,” as abortion-rights demonstrators surrounded them.

One young woman clutched rosary beads in her hands and had red tape over her mouth with the word “life” written on it.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Clarece Polke; Editing by Bill Trott and Will Dunham)

Wisconsin Governor Signs 20 Week Abortion Ban

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has signed a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks.

The bill banning late-term abortions includes a provision to protect the mother’s life or health. The ban is similar to those in 14 other states.

“For people, regardless of where they might stand, when an unborn child can feel pain I think most people feel it’s appropriate to protect that child,” Walker said, according to Al Jazeera America.

Any doctor caught performing an abortion after 20 weeks in Wisconsin could face 3 1/2 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.

The bill will likely be challenged by pro-abortion groups in light of a federal court ruling in May striking down Idaho’s 20-week ban. Arizona had similar ban struck down and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal from the state.

In my past four years as governor, we have made substantial progress in the fight for our pro-life values in Wisconsin,” Walker wrote on March 3rd about the abortion issue. “We defunded Planned Parenthood. We prohibited abortion from being covered by health plans in a health exchange. We passed legislation assuring the women and their unborn child are better protected under law – through placing stringent requirements on medical professionals and requiring the provision of thorough and vital information to the mother.

I was raised to believe in the sanctity of life and I will always fight to protect it.”

Kansas To Appeal Judge’s Ruling Blocking Abortion Law

The Kansas Attorney General has filed an intent to appeal the decision of a local judge that blocked the enforcement of a new abortion law.

The notice filed by lawyers representing Attorney General Derek Schmidt states they intend to ask the Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling of District Judge Larry Hendricks. He had put the law on hold until he hears a lawsuit filed by a New York group on behalf of two Kansas abortionists.

The Kansas law bans what is known as “dismemberment abortion”, defined as “knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child….”

“This is a horrific procedure,” Gov. Sam Brownback’s spokesman Eileen Hawley told reporters. “He hopes the nation follows suit.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that states are able to put in place regulations on the abortion industry, which is exactly what SB 95 does,” Sen. Garrett Love, the bill’s sponsor, said in an e-mail to the Wichita Eagle. “ … Kansans want to protect life at all stages and don’t want unborn babies to have their lives ended in this manner.”

Supreme Court Puts Texas Abortion Law on Hold

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, has put on hold the Texas abortion law that would require clinics to meet higher standards of cleanliness and safety. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were in the minority.

The ruling means the law cannot go into effect until the court decides if they will give a full hearing to the appeal on the case.

Abortion proponents say that if the law goes into effect, abortion clinics will be limited to four metropolitan areas and there will be no clinics west of San Antonio.

“This case presents a very, very dramatic impact in the type of restrictions on access to abortion clinics that we’ve seen over the past few years,” Nancy Northup, the president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the New York Times. “If this case is not taken by the Supreme Court, it’s going to allow a continuation of the closing of clinics by these sneaky, underhanded methods.”

Texas leaders say they will be vigorously defending the law before the Court.

“H.B. 2 was a constitutional exercise of Texas’ lawmaking authority that was correctly and unanimously upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. “Texas will continue to fight for higher-quality health care standards for women while protecting our most vulnerable — the unborn, and I’m confident the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this law.”

Judge Blocks Kansas Abortion Law

A judge has blocked a Kansas abortion law that was due to take effect on July 1.

The law bans a late-term abortion process called “dismemberment abortion.”

A country judge blocked the law until he can conduct a full review.

The ban would have impacted up to 9 percent of the abortions in the state as most abortions take place in the first trimester.

Pro-abortion activists hailed the judge’s decision.

“This is so important for the women of Kansas, since this ban would have required woman to go for a more complex procedure with greater risk,” Genevieve Scott, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said. “We are excited the judge recognized the likelihood of success that this violates the right to abortion. We think [the injunction] shows that the judge is abiding by Supreme Court precedent that a ban on D&E is unconstitutional.”

The state’s lawyers are defending the law.

“The Act does not preclude access to safe and effective abortions,” the state’s lawyers wrote in a recent court filing. “Instead, it simply declares one particularly gruesome and medically unnecessary method of abortion to be beyond society’s tolerance level.”

“I think that ultimately, we’re going to be successful,” Jessie Basgall, attorney for Kansans for Life, said after the ruling. “This is just whether or not the law is going to stand while we actually litigate the merits of this law. I believe we’re on solid ground.”

Sign up for Jim Bakker Show