Steve Strang and Pastor Jim and Lori Bakker talk about the restoration of PTL with guest Michael Snyder.
Tag Archives: Abortion
Supreme Court rejects two new abortion cases
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand lower court rulings that blocked restrictions on doctors who perform abortions in Mississippi and Wisconsin a day after the court struck down a similar measure in Texas.
The laws in both states required doctors to have admitting privileges, a type of difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation, with a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. Both were put on hold by lower courts. The Mississippi law would have shut down the only clinic in the state if it had gone into effect.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
Supreme Court rejects pharmacists’ religious claim
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal filed by pharmacists in Washington state who objected on religious grounds to providing emergency contraceptives to women.
The justices, with three conservatives dissenting, left in place a July ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed medicines in a timely manner.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion saying the court’s decision not to hear the case is “an ominous sign.”
In Washington, the state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.
The case is one of several around the United States in which people and businesses have sought to opt out of providing services that conflict with their religious faith.
Alito said there is evidence the regulation was adopted because of “hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.”
“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Alito added.
Alito’s comments seemed to refer to the current vacancy on the court created by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the possibility of a successor appointed by a Democratic president. If Scalia’s replacement is a liberal, Alito appears to be warning, it would tilt the court to the left, and a majority may be less receptive to claims by conservative religious groups that government is infringing upon their rights.
The Supreme Court in 2014 allowed certain businesses to object on religious grounds to the Obamacare law’s requirement that companies provide employees with insurance that pays for women’s birth control. The court in May sent a similar dispute brought by nonprofit Christian employers back to lower courts without resolving the main legal issue.
The appeals court said the rules rationally further the state’s interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, that court said.
The appeals court had overturned a lower court that had said the rules were unconstitutional. The regulation was challenged by family-owned Stormans Inc, which operates a pharmacy in a grocery store in Olympia. Two individual pharmacists who worked elsewhere also joined the lawsuit.
The objectors are Christians who associate so-called “morning after” emergency contraceptives with abortion.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion law
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics.
The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings.
Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.
By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states.
Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women’s health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19.
Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers.
The Texas law required abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges,” a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care.
The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains.
The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.
Some U.S. states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others.
Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 U.S. adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 percent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 percent said it generally should be illegal.
Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Adfam DeRose; Editing by Will Dunham)
FDA backs expanded use of medical abortion pill
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday agreed to allow more access to Danco Laboratories’ abortion pill Mifeprex, likely making it easier and cheaper for women to have an abortion by medication.
The FDA increased authorized use of the pill to 70 days of gestation from the current 49 days, cut the recommended dose of the drug and reduced the number of required visits to a doctor.
The changes are expected to allow greater access to medication abortions, particularly in Texas, North Dakota and Ohio, which have laws that require providers to prescribe the drug according to a more restrictive FDA label in place since 2000.
On Wednesday, the agency updated the Mifepfrex requirements to bring them in line with the most up-to-date scientific studies, which have shown that a third of the dose works as well.
“The FDA label has finally caught up to the evidence based practice in the United States,” said Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive of the National Abortion Federation, an organization of abortion providers. “It has the potential of opening medical abortion care in more rural areas because it does not have to be given by a surgical abortion provider,” she added.
The FDA decision comes amid a heated 2016 presidential race.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court took up a major abortion case which represents a 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.
Mifeprex was approved in 2000 to terminate early pregnancy when given in combination with misoprostol, an anti-inflammatory drug that was originally approved to prevent gastric ulcers.
Under the new prescription information on the label, patients will take one 200 mg tablet of Mifeprex on day one instead of three 200 mg tablets. They will take 800 mcg of misoprostol 24-48 hours after taking Mifeprex. Previously they took 400 mcg on day three.
Under the old label, patients were asked to return to their doctor 14 days after taking Mifeprex for an examination. The new label requires that they return between seven and 14 days for an “assessment.”
As far back as 2001, an estimated 83 percent of U.S. providers were no longer using the old FDA-approved regimen, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which backs abortion rights but whose research is used by both sides of the debate.
(Reporting by Toni Clarke, Jilian Mincer and Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Supreme Court temporarily blocks Louisiana abortion law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court, two days after hearing a major abortion case from Texas, on Friday temporarily blocked a Louisiana law imposing regulations on doctors who perform abortions in a move that would allow two recently closed clinics to reopen.
In a brief order, the court granted a request by abortion providers seeking to reinstate a lower-court injunction that blocked the Republican-backed 2014 law, which required doctors to obtain a formal affiliation with a local hospital.
The abortion providers contend the law was designed to shut down abortion clinics by requiring hospital “admitting privileges” that are difficult for their doctors to secure.
Louisiana will now have four clinics in total.
The order noted that one of the eight justices, conservative Clarence Thomas, said he would have denied the application.
The order said the court’s action was in line with its decision in June to temporarily block part of a Texas abortion law that was challenged by abortion providers in a high-profile case. The justices heard oral arguments in that case on Wednesday.
The Louisiana law mandates that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. The regulation matches one in the Texas law.
U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in January granted a preliminary injunction sought by abortion providers, finding the law violated the constitutional right to an abortion established by the Supreme Court in 1973. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that decision on Feb. 24, allowing the law to go into effect.
The high court’s action sent mixed signals on how it might rule in the Texas case, in part because the justices previously allowed the Texas admitting privileges provision to go into effect.
The action could suggest the court has greater concerns about admitting privileges requirements than were indicated during Wednesday’s argument in the Texas case. Friday’s move effectively put Louisiana’s law on hold while the justices prepare a ruling, expected by the end of June, in the Texas case.
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion providers in both cases, welcomed the court’s action.
“These underhanded tactics to cut off women’s access to safe, legal abortion simply cannot stand,” Northup said.
The Texas case also involves a separate provision that requires clinics to have costly, hospital-grade facilities.
The Louisiana law was signed by Republican then-Governor Bobby Jindal in 2014.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
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)
Supreme Court set to consider contentious Texas abortion case
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court was set to hear its first abortion rights case in nearly a decade on Wednesday as it weighs a Texas law that the state contends protects a woman’s health but abortion providers assert is aimed at shutting down their clinics.
Eight justices will hear 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.
There is also 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 2013 Texas law, adopted by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor, requires abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care.
Because this formal hospital affiliation is not easy to obtain, abortion providers say it has already prompted clinics to close.
The abortion providers also are challenging provisions in the law, not yet in effect, that mandate that clinics have costly, hospital-grade facilities with standards for corridor width, plumbing, parking spaces, room size, the spacing of beds and many other attributes.
Texas now has 19 abortion clinics, down from 41 just before the law passed.
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.
The clinics stated that complications rarely occur during abortions and the law provides no health benefits to patients. Texas contended that state legislators have considerable leeway to protect the health of women who seek to end a pregnancy.
A ruling is due by the end of June. The Supreme Court’s last major abortion ruling was in 2007 when it upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.
(Editing by Will Dunham)
U.S. loses more than 160 abortion providers since 2011
The number of abortion providers in the United States continues to dwindle, and Bloomberg reported Wednesday that the rate of their disappearance is at its highest point on record.
The procedure is legal across the country, though Republican lawmakers in several states have passed a variety of laws in recent years that make it more difficult for clinics to operate.
Citing data from the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit with a focus on reproductive health, Bloomberg reported the United States lost more than 150 standalone clinics between the late 1980s and 2011. The number stood at 553 in 2011 and has declined further in subsequent years.
Bloomberg conducted its own analysis and found 162 abortion providers stopped performing the procedure — or closed entirely — in the past five years, a little more than one every two weeks.
Bloomberg reported that 35 states lost at least one provider since 2011, and restrictive laws were to blame for more than 40 of the closings. At least 30 closures occurred in Texas, whose abortion regulations are the subject of a lawsuit that will be reviewed by the Supreme Court on March 2.
Other providers closed because of business decisions, reduced demand or a lack of doctors, Bloomberg found, and only 21 new clinics have opened since 2011 amid the rising challenges.