Tag Archives: Abortion Law

Supreme Court Could Decide Texas Abortion Law’s Constitutionality

Pro-abortion groups have filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in their quest to eliminate a Texas abortion law that calls for higher safety and wellness standards for clinics that provide abortions.

The bill, signed in 2013, is HB 2.  The bill requires abortion clinics to meet the same health and cleanliness standards as other ambulatory surgical centers.  It also bans late term abortions in the state except for rape and incest.  The law also requires abortionists to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital with in 30 miles of their clinic.

“… new research and advanced technology give prematurely-born children a renewed chance at life, which should give us all pause as we argue the definition of viability,” stated then Texas Governor Rick Perry, who signed the bill.

“House Bill 2 ensures that anyone performing abortions in Texas is doing so in a facility that is safe, clean and prepared to deal with any emergencies that might occur – a reasonable, common sense expectation for those caring for the health and safety of Texans.”

Twenty abortion clinics in the state closed by May 2014 rather than meet the health and cleanliness requirements of the bill.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Texas earlier this month.

“Reviewing Texas’s statute against a backdrop of varying state regulations of abortion, Roe assessed the states’ interests in regulating abortion, acknowledging a legitimate interest in women’s health,” wrote the panel.

“It held that states may not proscribe abortion prior to viability. … After viability, generally at the end of the second trimester, states could proscribe or regulate abortion except when an abortion was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Without a Supreme Court stay, the law will go into effect July 1.

Supreme Court Allows Striking Down Of N.C. Abortion Law

A North Carolina abortion law that would have required women to see an ultrasound of their baby before having an abortion has officially been declared unconstitutional as the Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal of a lower court ruling.

The Women’s Right to Know Act was passed in 2011 and immediately challenged by pro-abortion activists and groups.  The law required the abortionist to show the ultrasound to the woman and describe to her the child’s features along with offering a chance to hear the baby’s heartbeat.  The law also included a 24 hour mandatory waiting period.

The rejection by the Supremes means the Fourth Circuit’s ruling invalidates the law.

“This compelled speech, even though it is a regulation of the medical profession, is ideological in intent and in kind,” the panel wrote. “The First Amendment not only protects against prohibitions of speech, but also against regulations that compel speech. A regulation compelling speech is by its very nature content-based, because it requires the speaker to change the content of his speech or even to say something where he would otherwise be silent.”

“Moreover, the statement compelled here is ideological; it conveys a particular opinion,” it continued. “The state freely admits that the purpose … is to convince women seeking abortions to change their minds or reassess their decisions.”

Supporters of the law say that they can’t understand why abortion is the only medical procedure in the state where doctors don’t have to tell the patient what can happen during the procedure.

“In any other medical procedure, doctors would have a duty to disclose all of the relevant information, and, yet, a procedure as destructive and life-changing as abortion is held to a lower standard,” Tami Fitzgerald of the North Carolina Values Coalition told reporters.

“We’re disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided not to review a decision that denies mothers this fully informed consent about human life in the womb and the methods abortionists use to end it,” also commented Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Legal Counsel Steven Aden in a statement. “Contrary to the 4th Circuit’s decision, there is nothing ‘extreme’ about a measure that only seeks to require abortionists to employ technology they are already using for abortions. Abortionists simply don’t want to use it in a way that jeopardizes their profits and shows women the truth.”

Lindsey Graham Reintroduces Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has reintroduced in the Senate the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would ban all abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy except in cases of rape and incest.

The bill passed the House of Representatives 242-184 last month.

“This legislation is groundbreaking yet simple at the same time. What I love most about this piece of legislation is how simple it is,” Graham said. “Do you believe that at 20 weeks in the pregnancy, five months, when medical encyclopedias are encouraging young parents to sing to their child because they can begin to recognize the voice, that this is a stage in development where you should be very excited because your child is well on their way? Does the government have a legitimate and compelling interest to protect that baby? The answer, I believe, is yes.”

The Centers for Disease Control says just 1 percent of abortions take place after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  Graham says that information combined with medical proof a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks is compelling evidence to put the measure in place.

The Bill is expected to be a struggle for passage in the Democrat dominated Senate.

Arkansas Abortion Law Struck Down

A federal appeals court has ruled an Arkansas state law banning abortion when a heartbeat is detected violates the Constitution.

The ruling upholds the decision of a lower court.

The Human Heartbeat Protection Act was passed in March 2013 and legislators had to override the veto of Democratic Governor Mike Beebe to make it law.  The Act required all women to obtain an ultrasound before an abortion and if a heartbeat was detected, it was no longer legal to obtain the abortion.

The law had first been struck down in April 2014 by judge Susan Webber Wright who claimed that Roe v. Wade required viability of the baby and not just a heartbeat.

“The Court finds as a matter of law that the 12-week abortion ban included in Act 301 prohibits pre-viability abortions and thus impermissibly infringes a woman’s 14th Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability,” she wrote. “The state presents no evidence that a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb at twelve weeks.”

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the viability claim of the lower court.

Arkansas state officials are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appeals Court Strikes Down Idaho Abortion Ban

A federal appeals court has struck down Idaho’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman who filed a class action lawsuit against the law.  She had been facing criminal charges for an abortion after 20 weeks.

Jennie McCormack illegally obtained RU-486 in 2011 through her sister.  She then kept the baby’s dead body on her porch in a plastic bag when she was found out by authorities.  She was charged with unlawful felony abortion which a state court dismissed.  She then filed suit against Idaho’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

President Carter appointed judge Harry Pregerson stated in the ruling that 20 weeks was too restrictive.

“The twenty-week ban applies regardless of whether the fetus has attained viability,” he wrote on behalf of the panel. “The Supreme Court reaffirmed in Casey that an undue burden exists if the purpose or effect of a provision of law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus obtains viability.”

“Because [Idaho’s law] places an arbitrary time limit on when women can obtain abortions, the statute is unconstitutional,” Pregerson declared.

Idaho officials have not yet announced if they will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Pro-Abortionist Sympathizers In California Legislature Pass “Bully Bill”

A bill that pro-life organizations call the “bully bill” requiring pregnancy care centers to inform women about abortion and provide locations to obtain an abortion has passed the California Assembly.

AB 775, titled the “Reproductive FACT Act” was written by a Democratic assemblyman specifically targeting pregnancy care centers that do not provide abortion services or information.

“The author contends that, unfortunately, there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in California whose goal is to interfere with women’s ability to be fully informed and exercise their reproductive rights, and that CPCs pose as full-service women’s health clinics, but aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions,” the bill written by Assemblyman David Chiu reads.

Chin and fellow Democrats placed in the bill language that requires any pregnancy care center to give in print to clients a statement that reads: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at (telephone number).”

The Assembly voted 49-26 to pass the bill and send it to the Senate.

Republican Jim Patterson, who co-founded a pregnancy care center and adopted two children, spoke against the bill and voted against approval.

“It is an effort to force objectionable, state-mandated speech on pro-life pregnancy care centers which have freely formed in order to compassionately present alternative views—views which are rightly protected by the Constitution,” he said. “To force these centers to post and to distribute how to obtain free abortions cuts to the core of their founding purpose and their reason for being.”

“Two of my adopted children and all three of my grandchildren are the living witnesses of the profound and life-affirming options these centers provide,” Patterson continued. “Privately-funded pregnancy resource centers, and the compassionate people who volunteer at them, have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. And it is our duty as officers of the state of California to protect that right, not to assault it.”

Oklahoma Legislature Passes Dismemberment Abortion Bill

A day after Kansas’s governor signed a bill banning dismemberment abortions in the state, the Oklahoma senate passed a bill prohibiting the same procedure in their state.

The Senate passed the bill 37-4 and sent the bill to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.  Fallin, a Republican, has not said if she will sign the bill but she has signed previous anti-abortion measures.

The bill bans doctors from using forceps, clamps, scissors or similar devices to stop a baby’s heart and remove the fetus in pieces.  Statistics show that only 5 percent of abortions in Oklahoma in 2013 were performed with this procedure.

Senator Josh Brecheen described the procedure as “gruesome” and promoted the bill by graphically describing to his colleagues exactly how the baby is removed during the procedure.

Abortion promoters like Planned Parenthood attacked the bill, saying that inflammatory language was used to persuade legislators.  Pro-abortion advocates say the procedure is often safest for women who want to have an abortion.

Missouri and South Carolina are both considering similar bills.

Supreme Court Blocks Texas Abortion Law

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to block a law that was designed to protect the health of women seeking to end the lives of their babies via abortion in Texas.

In an unsigned order from the court, they supported abortionists and those who advocate the killing of babies via abortion by suspending the October 2nd ruling of an appeals court that said that Texas law could take effect while appeals take place.

The court also put on hold a part of the law that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals for abortionists near the Texas/Mexico border.

“This does not protect the health and safety of women who are undergoing abortion,” said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. “”This is definitely a short-term loss, but not necessarily a long- term loss.”

Texas state attorneys say that the law is not a burden on women who want to kill their babies, because nearly 9 in 10 women still live within 150 miles of an abortionist.

Appeals Court Upholds Texas Abortion Law

A Federal appeals court has upheld a Texas law that will close many of the state’s abortion facilities.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the decision of Judge Lee Yeakel, the second time his rulings to keep abortion clinics from having to meet cleanliness standards for surgical centers had been overturned by the appeals court.

“Without any evidence on these points, plaintiffs do not appear to have met their burden to show that the ambulatory surgical center provision will result in insufficient clinic capacity that will impose an undue burden on a large fraction of women,” the appeals court ruled.

While those standing for the lives of unborn children were pleased with the ruling, they were disappointed that abortions will still continue in the state.

“The reality is that elective abortions will continue to remain readily available in Texas; that’s not our preference, but that’s the reality,” Joe Pojman, executive director of the Alliance for Life, told reporters. “Because there are seven very large ambulatory surgical centers that provide abortion in the major metropolitan cities women will still have ready access to elective abortions.”

California Bishops File Suit Against Abortion Mandate

The California Catholic Conference has taken the state government to court over the state’s order that all Catholic institutions pay for voluntary direct abortions.

The abortions that must be covered include abortions for gender selection and for late-term abortions.

“Catholic beliefs about life and human dignity animate and shape our Catholic ministries,” Bishop Robert McElroy, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco told the Christian Post.  “It’s why we oppose abortion, but it is also why Catholic schools provide education, Catholic hospitals care for the poor and vulnerable and why Catholic social services provide assistance to people and families in need. It goes to the core of our moral beliefs.”

The group claims that the state’s orders violate federal human rights laws.

“This is a coercive and discriminatory action by the state of California,” McElroy added. “This demand by the state was directly targeted at Catholic institutions like Santa Clara University, Loyola Marymount University, along with other California employers and citizens. It is a flagrant violation of their civil rights and deepest moral convictions, and is government coercion of the worst kind.”