Tag Archives: Anti-Abortion

Kentucky Senate passes bill restricting abortion procedure

FILE PHOTO: Republican Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

By Steve Bittenbender

(Reuters) – The Kentucky Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation on Thursday to ban a common abortion procedure once the patient reaches her 11th week of pregnancy, in what would amount to one of the strictest abortion limits yet in the United States.

The Senate voted 31-5 in favor of the measure, which now goes back to the state’s House of Representatives for final approval of changes to a version of the bill it passed 71-11 vote on March 12. Both bodies are controlled by Republicans.

The procedure in question, called dilation and evacuation, accounts for 16 percent of all abortions performed in Kentucky. It is primarily for pregnancies in the second trimester.

The House and Senate are in recess until March 27.

On Monday, Mississippi’s governor signed into law the most restrictive abortion measure enacted in the United States, which bans any type of procedure once pregnancies reach 15 weeks.

But on Tuesday, a U.S. federal judge blocked the law from taking effect for 10 days, pending legal arguments over whether the injunction should remain in effect while the overall case remains under judicial review.

The Kentucky and Mississippi measures both allow medical emergency procedures that otherwise would be prohibited.

Representatives for Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican who has described himself as “100 percent pro-life,” could not be reached immediately for comment.

Since last year, when Republicans won control of the Kentucky House for the first time since 1921, the state’s legislature has passed several measures to restrict access to abortion, including banning any type of abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Representative Addia Wuchner, a Republican, tweeted after a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, that her bill protects “unborn children in Kentucky from intentional bodily dismemberment”.

But critics say that the bill will almost certainly face a legal challenge. Last year, a similar measure passed by Texas lawmakers was struck down by a federal judge.

Similar bans in other states including Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma have also been struck down by courts.

“Kentucky can’t afford doomed legislation created out of willful ignorance,” Marcie Crim, executive director of the Kentucky Health Justice Network, said on Twitter. “We need every dime of our money to go towards real improvements, not grandstanding.”

While dilation and evacuation is used in most second-trimester abortions, nearly 90 percent of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

(Reporting by Steve Bittenbender in Louisville, Kentucky; Editing by Bernie Woodall and Richard Borsuk)

Supreme Court mulls California law on anti-abortion facilities

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, DC, U.S., October 13, 2015. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday tackles a dispute over whether a California law requiring Christian-based facilities that counsel pregnant women against abortion to post signs disclosing the availability of state-subsidized abortions and birth control violates their right to free speech.

The nine justices are set to hear an hour of arguments in an appeal by a group of non-profit facilities called crisis pregnancy centers of a lower court ruling upholding the Democratic-backed 2015 law.

The case represents a crossroads of two contentious issues: abortion and the breadth of the right to freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, and the wider issue of abortion rights is not at issue in the case.

Crisis pregnancy centers say they offer legitimate health services but that it is their mission to steer women with unplanned pregnancies away from abortion. They accuse California of forcing them to advertise for abortion even though they oppose it.

California says some crisis pregnancy centers mislead women by presenting themselves as full-service reproductive healthcare facilities and the law helps ensure these clients are made aware of abortion services available elsewhere.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in 2016 after it was challenged by some of these facilities, finding the statute did not discriminate based on viewpoint.

California’s Reproductive FACT Act, passed by a Democratic-led legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, requires centers licensed as family planning facilities to post or distribute notices that the state has programs offering free or low-cost birth control and abortion services. The law requires unlicensed facilities with no medical provider on staff to disclose that fact.

Abortion rights advocates say the roughly 2,700 U.S. anti-abortion pregnancy centers, including around 200 in California, far outnumber facilities providing abortions.

The California challengers are the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an umbrella group for crisis pregnancy centers, and two such facilities in San Diego County. The plaintiffs had told the lower courts that they would not comply with the law.

A win for them could make it harder for Democratic-governed states to impose rules on crisis pregnancy centers, but also could help abortion rights advocates challenge laws in Republican-governed states that impose certain requirements on abortion clinics.

California said its law does not force crisis pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions, nor does it prevent them from voicing their views on abortion. The state told the justices in legal papers that some centers use incomplete or false medical advice to try to prevent women from having an abortion. Some resemble medical clinics, down to lab coats worn by staff, to try to confuse women into thinking they are at a center offering all options, the state added.

The facilities deny using deceptive tactics.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Trump to address U.S. anti-abortion march, cementing U-turn on issue

President Donald Trump departs following a Congressional Gold Medal ceremony for former Senator Bob Dole at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 17, 2018.

By Jonathan Allen

(Reuters) – Donald Trump will become the third sitting U.S. president to address anti-abortion activists at the annual March for Life on Friday, highlighting his shift in recent years from a supporter of women’s access to abortion to a powerful opponent.

Trump is due to address the march in Washington via satellite from the White House Rose Garden on Friday afternoon. Ronald Reagan, Trump’s fellow Republican, made supportive remarks to the march in 1987 via telephone, while George W. Bush, another Republican, twice did the same, in 2003 and 2004.

“The President is committed to protecting the life of the unborn, and he is excited to be part of this historic event,” Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Wednesday.

Organizers of the march, the largest anti-abortion event in the country, praised Trump for his policies on restricting abortion access. These policies include efforts to eliminate federal funding to groups providing abortions. Trump sent Vice President Mike Pence, a vocal abortion opponent, to speak at last year’s march, a few days after the presidential inauguration.

Trump has also pledged to appoint more judges that support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion at most stages of a pregnancy, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide.

The March for Life, where tens of thousands of people seeking to overturn that decision gather at the National Mall before rallying at the Supreme Court steps, is held close to the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling.

Paul Ryan, the Republican speaker of U.S. House of Representatives, will also address the march, now in its 45th year.

Trump was previously a supporter of women’s access to abortion, saying in an interview in 1999, when he was still a celebrity real-estate tycoon in New York City, that while he “hated the concept of abortion” he was “very pro-choice.”

As a Republican candidate for the presidency in 2016, Trump said his position had “evolved,” describing himself as “pro-life with exceptions,” such as in cases of rape or incest.

Trump has said he hopes Roe v. Wade will eventually be overturned and that each state would instead be allowed to decide whether to ban the procedure.

Americans tend to split roughly down the middle on abortion access, with 49 percent saying they supported it and 46 percent saying they opposed it in a 2017 Gallup poll.

(Reporting by Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Andrew Hay)

U.S. top court to hear dispute over California pregnancy center law

An activist holds a rosary while ralling against abortion outside City Hall in Los Angeles, California September 29, 2015. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a California law requiring private facilities that counsel pregnant women against abortion to post signs telling clients how to get state-funded abortions and contraceptives violates free speech rights.

The justices will hear an appeal brought by Christian-based non-profit facilities sometimes called “crisis pregnancy centers” of a lower court ruling that upheld the Democratic-backed 2015 California law. The challengers argue that the law, by forcing them to post the information, violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

California argued that the Reproductive FACT Act, passed by a Democratic-led legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, is justified by its responsibility to regulate the healthcare industry and is needed to ensure that women know the state has programs providing abortions and birth control.

The law requires licensed healthcare facilities to post a notice saying that the state has programs for “immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services … prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.” For non-licensed medical facilities, an additional notice is required stating that the center “has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

The facilities had asked the high court to hear their appeal of a ruling last year by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law.

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to similar law in New York City, although that case differed from the California dispute because the lower court had struck down several provisions, including one that required centers to disclose whether they provide abortions and other reproductive care.

The “crisis pregnancy centers” counsel women not to have abortions. These facilities, according to critics, often are located near hospitals and abortion clinics, offer ultrasounds and are staffed by people wearing medical garb. Some are medically licensed facilities, others are not.

Challengers included the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an umbrella group for anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers that said its members include 73 centers in California that are medically licensed and 38 that are not.

The other plaintiffs are two centers in San Diego County: Pregnancy Care Center and Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center. The court did not act on three other cases brought by other centers making similar claims.

The Supreme Court found that women have a constitutional right to an abortion in the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade. The court most recently backed abortion rights in 2016 when it struck down a Texas law that imposed strict regulations on clinics that provided abortions.

 

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

Anti-abortion activists lose bid to dismiss California privacy case

FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activist David Daleiden, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez/File Photo

By Lisa Fernandez

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Two anti-abortion activists charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly filming abortion providers in California lost their bid for dismissal of the case on Wednesday, but the judge ordered prosecutors to amend a criminal complaint he deemed too vague.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite gave the state attorney general’s office until mid-July to file a revised complaint that describes the accusations in greater detail, including specific dates, alleged victims and circumstances.

Hite ruled the identities of alleged victims would remain under court seal and admonished lawyers to keep that information confidential, after the defense team for one defendant, David Daleiden, was found to have posted videos and other identifying material online.

The judge declined to take disciplinary action against Daleiden’s lawyers, as urged by prosecutors, and also denied the defense’s request to toss out the case.

Daleiden, 28, and Sandra Merritt, 64, appeared in court on Wednesday, but they are not expected to enter a plea until the arraignment on July 17, the deadline set for the amended complaint.

Each is charged with conspiracy and 14 counts of invasion of privacy for creating false identities as representatives of a fetal-tissue procurement company to infiltrate a 2014 National Abortion Federation meeting, then videotaping conference participants and others without their consent.

Daleiden and Merritt have cast themselves as targets of a politically motivated prosecution for their roles in “sting” operations that exposed Planned Parenthood and related groups to unwelcome scrutiny by conservatives in Congress during the run-up to the 2016 elections.

Defense lawyers say Daleiden and Merritt acted as “citizen journalists” employing well-worn undercover tactics of the news media.

Prosecutors counter that Daleiden and Merritt engaged in computer hacking and criminal fraud to create false IDs and a sham corporate entity to gain access to private meetings – behavior that bona fide journalists would avoid as unethical.

Daleiden became an anti-abortion movement hero in 2015 after his group, the Center for Medical Progress, circulated videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials trying to profit from the sale of aborted fetal tissue in violation of federal law.

The organization said Daleiden’s heavily edited videos distorted its lawful and ethical practice of seeking reimbursement only to cover costs associated with such donations.

Daleiden and Merritt were indicted in January 2016 for using illegal government IDs to covertly film a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, but that case was dropped.

FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activist, Sandra Merritt, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez/File Photo

FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activist, Sandra Merritt, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez/File Photo

(Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Bill Trott and Leslie Adler)

Tennessee, Iowa close to banning abortions after 20 weeks

ultrasound machine

By Tim Ghianni

NASHVILLE, Tenn (Reuters) – Two U.S. states drew closer on Wednesday to legislating tougher restrictions on abortion with both Iowa and Tennessee seeking governors’ signatures that would ban the procedure after 20 weeks.

Women in the United States have the right under the Constitution to end a pregnancy, but abortion opponents have pushed for tougher regulations, particularly in conservative states.

A Tennessee bill banning abortions after 20 weeks was sent to the desk of Governor Bill Haslam after it was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled House on Wednesday.

Haslam, a Republican, has not made a decision on whether he will sign the measure into law and will discuss the bill with the state’s attorney general, his spokeswoman Jennifer Donnals said.

Attorney General Herbert Slatery could not be reached for comment.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, also a Republican, said he would sign on Friday a 20-week abortion ban. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate last month.

There are 24 states that impose prohibitions on abortions after a certain number of weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive policy.

Seventeen of these states ban abortion at about 20 weeks.

The Tennessee bill would require women to undergo a test of viability and gestational age before a doctor performed an abortion. Doctors who violate the law could face felony charges. The bill does not make exceptions for rape or incest. It does allow for abortions if the mother’s life or health is at risk.

“We’ve made significant progress as a legislative body in recent years to give a voice to the unborn,” Republican representative Matthew Hill said in a statement.

Iowa’s bill bans abortions once a pregnancy reaches 20 weeks and stipulates a three-day waiting period before a woman can undergo any abortion. It does not make exceptions for instances of rape or incest. It does allow for abortions if the mother’s life or health is at risk.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, a group that provides family planning services, including abortions, filed a lawsuit challenging Iowa’s waiting period.

“The governor, lieutenant governor and Iowa legislators have waged an outright war on women’s access to safe and legal abortions,” said Suzanna de Baca, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

(Additional reporting and writing by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago; editing by Grant McCool)

Anti-abortion activists seek dismissal of California privacy case

Anti-abortion activist David Daleiden, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez

By Lisa Fernandez

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Lawyers for two anti-abortion activists who secretly filmed a conference of abortion providers while pretending to work for a fetal-tissue procurement company asked a California judge on Wednesday to dismiss eavesdropping charges against the pair.

Defense attorneys asserted in court papers that the criminal complaint brought by California’s attorney general against David Daleiden, 28, and Sandra Merritt, 63, was insufficient because it failed to identify their alleged victims by name.

Daleiden and Merritt are each charged with conspiracy and 14 counts of invasion of privacy for creating false identities to infiltrate the abortion conference, then videotaping various conference participants and others without their consent.

The two are accused of fabricating a sham biomedical research firm, BioMax Procurement Services, to gain access to private meetings of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), Planned Parenthood and others affiliated with reproductive healthcare.

The individuals they taped are referred to in charging documents as DOE 1 through 14. Prosecutors filed identifying information in a sealed confidential attachment.

If the judge sides with the defense, finding prosecutors lack justification for keeping the alleged victims anonymous, the state could be forced to amend its complaint and reveal their names in order to proceed.

Defense lawyer Steve Cooley, representing Daleiden, said state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, was conducting a political prosecution.

Daleiden, who runs the California-based nonprofit Center for Medical Progress, and Merritt, a fellow anti-abortion activist and retired teacher, have cast themselves as “citizen journalists” who employed well-worn undercover tactics of the news media to expose wrongdoing.

But prosecutors said Daleiden and Merritt engaged in computer hacking and criminal fraud to create false IDs and a bogus corporate entity – crossing lines that bona fide journalists would avoid.

The case stems from recordings made at an April 2014 NAF conference in San Francisco and several subsequent restaurant meetings in Los Angeles and El Dorado, California.

Distribution of those tapes and others from a 2015 NAF conference in Baltimore were barred under federal court order after NAF sued Daleiden’s group in 2015.

But Daleiden has released other videos targeting Planned Parenthood purporting to show its officials trying to profit from the sale aborted fetal tissue, in violation of federal law.

Planned Parenthood accused Daleiden of using the videos to distort its practices, in which it lawfully seeks only to recover costs associated with fetal tissue donations for scientific research.

Daleiden and Merritt were indicted in January 2016 for using illegal government identifications to secretly film a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, but that case was dropped. Both are slated for arraignment in the California case on June 8.

Daleiden surrendered to authorities last month under an arrest warrant and was released on $75,000 bond. Merritt was taken into custody at the court on Thursday and was expected to post bond later in the day.

(Additional reporting and writing by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Robert Birsel)

Trump signs resolution allowing U.S. states to block family planning funds

U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington, U.S., before traveling to Palm Beach, Florida for the Good Friday holiday/Easter weekend, April 13, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Lisa Lambert

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Thursday signed a resolution that will allow U.S. states to restrict how federal funds for contraception and reproductive health are spent, a move cheered by anti-abortion campaigners.

“This is a major pro-life victory,” said the most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, Speaker Paul Ryan, adding that a regulation enacted under Democratic former President Barack Obama had forced states to fund Planned Parenthood, a national non-profit that provides contraception, health screenings, and abortions.

Under the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to repeal newly minted rules, both the House and Senate had passed a resolution killing Obama’s regulation that had protected federal grants for clinics in states wanting to block the funding.

States such as Texas in recent years have kept the grants from going to clinics as part of the country’s longstanding fight over abortion. Broadly, many Republicans seek to restrict abortion or make it illegal while Democrats have fought to keep abortion legal.

The resolution had narrowly passed the U.S. Congress, with Vice President Mike Pence called to the Senate on March 30 to break a tie vote in the chamber, where Republicans hold a slim majority. The federal government can never again create a “substantially similar” regulation under the review law.

The grants, known as “Title X” funds, were already barred from going directly to abortion services but under the now-null regulation Planned Parenthood clinics were assured they could receive money even in the face of state objections.

“Allowing states to withhold Title X funding from family planning clinics won’t make anyone safer or healthier – it will instead place essential services out of reach,” said Diane Horvath-Cosper, a medical doctor and fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health, adding that for many people the clinics are the only place where they can receive affordable health services such as disease testing.

(Reporting by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Frances Kerry)

Norway pledges $10 million to counter Trumps global anti abortion move

Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, attends the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland,

OSLO (Reuters) – Norway has joined an international initiative to raise millions of dollars to replace shortfalls left by U.S. President Donald Trump’s ban on U.S.-funded groups worldwide providing information on abortion.

In January, the Netherlands started a global fund to help women access abortion services, saying Trump’s “global gag rule” meant a funding gap of $600 million over the next four years, and has pledged $10 million to the initiative to replace that.

Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, Canada and Cape Verde have all also lent their support.

“The government is increasing its support for family planning and safe abortion by 85 million Norwegian crowns ($10 million) compared with 2016,” Prime Minister Erna Solberg said.

“At a time when this agenda has come under pressure, a joint effort is particularly important,” he said in a statement.

Last month, Trump reinstated a policy requiring overseas organizations that receive U.S. family-planning funds to certify they do not perform abortions or provide abortion advice as a method of family planning.

(Reporting by Gwladys Fouche; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Anti-abortion activists indicted in Texas for Planned Parenthood video

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) – Two anti-abortion activists behind the filming of videos on fetal tissue procurement by Planned Parenthood were indicted by a Texas grand jury on Monday, while clearing the women’s health group of any wrong-doing.

The videos released last summer led Texas and other Republican-controlled states to try to halt funding for local Planned Parenthood operations, with Republicans in the U.S. Congress also pushing for a funding cut.

The grand jury reviewed the case for more than two months and its decision was a result of a probe launched last year under Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, who accused Planned Parenthood of the “gruesome harvesting of baby body parts.”

“After a lengthy and thorough investigation by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the Texas Rangers, and the Houston Police Department, a Harris County grand jury took no action Monday against Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,” the Harris County District Attorney’s office said in a statement.

Planned Parenthood has denied the accusation and called the probe politically motivated.

David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were indicted by the grand jury for tampering with a governmental record, said prosecutors for the county in which Houston is located. The felony charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The two were involved in covert videos last year in which a Planned Parenthood official discussed the procurement of fetal tissue.

Daleiden, leader of the Center for Medical Progress that released the videos, was also charged with violating a prohibition on the purchase and sale of human organs, a misdemeanor, the Harris County District Attorney said.

There were no details released on the allegations against them.

“I respect their decision on this difficult case,” Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson said of the grand jury.

The videos purported to show Planned Parenthood officials trying to negotiate prices for aborted fetal tissue. Under federal law, donated human fetal tissue may be used for research, but profiting from its sale is prohibited.

“These people broke the law to spread malicious lies about Planned Parenthood in order to advance their extreme anti-abortion political agenda,” said Eric Ferrero, vice president of Communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

It is unclear what triggered the surprise indictments during the grand jury’s closed-door proceedings, said David Sklansky, faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center and a professor at Stanford Law School.

“It would be quite unusual for the grand jury to change direction without the cooperation and approval of the prosecutor,” Sklansky said. “But pretty much everything associated with this case seems unusual.”

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee weighed in, saying in a statement: “It’s a sick day in America when our government punishes those who expose evil with a smartphone – while accommodating those who perform it with a scalpel.”

Texas leaders said they would not back down on their probe.

Arkansas and Louisiana, two neighboring states that have launched similar moves to cut state Medicaid funding after the videos, have been on the losing end of federal lawsuits, with judges blocking their attempts to halt funds.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Additional reporting by Jim Christie in San Francisco; Editing by Matthew Lewis, Bernard Orr)