The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a federal lawsuit by abortion providers challenging the legality of Texas’ new abortion ban can proceed before the law is enforced against anyone, at least against some currently named defendants.
However, the Supreme Court allowed the Texas law to remain in effect during that challenge, which will proceed in a lower federal court.
The law, which empowers private citizens to sue, for at least $10,000, anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion, went into effect in September. But has not been enforced against any provider yet for terminating the pregnancy of a woman after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, usually around six weeks or so into gestation.
The court in its 8-1 ruling allowing the suit to proceed noted that “other viable avenues to contest the law’s compliance with the Federal Constitution also may be possible and the Court does not prejudge the possibility.”
The Biden administration’s challenge to the law was dismissed 8-1.
Supremes let Texas abortion law stand as challenge moves forward
Pro-life statute bans procedures after heartbeat can be detected
The Supreme Court has issued a ruling that allows a Texas abortion law to remain in effect even as a court challenge progresses through the system.
The precedent-creating law, S.B. 8 enacted in the state, does not allow state officials to bring criminal prosecutions or civil actions to enforce a ban on abortions after physicians can detect the unborn child’s heartbeat.
But it instead “directs enforcement through ‘private civil actions’ culminating in injunctions and statutory damages awards against those who perform or assist with prohibited abortions.”
Participants in America’s huge and lucrative abortion challenged the law before it had been enforced, and the Supreme Court ruling said that case could continue, but also that the law could continue at the same time.
The abortionists had sought a court ruling ordering government officials in the state including judges to refuse to file, or hear, cases that could be brought, but the high court removed them from the list of defendants.
The court said the abortion interests “failed to identify a basis in existing law that could justify disturbing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to deny injunctive relief” at this time. The opinion noted the actual issue of the status of the law is not being decided now.
The case is being allowed to proceed only against a few defendants, the opinion said, those “who may or must take enforcement actions against the petitioners if the petitioners violate terms of Texas’s Health and Safety Code, including S.B. 8.”
Washington Examiner noted the decision comes more than a month after justices heard arguments over the law that makes abortion illegal after a fetal heartbeat is detected.
CNBC reported the 8-1 decision came came a little over a week after the Supreme Court heard arguments in a separate case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, where the state of Mississippi is asking the justices to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that created a “right” to abortion in the Constitution.
CNBC reported, “During those arguments, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority appeared ready to weaken that precedent over the strenuous objections of the three liberal justices.”
On the pro-abortion side, Justice Sonia Sotomayor fretted at that time, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?”
Justice Clarence Thomas would have thrown out the Texas case in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
But the pro-abortion wing of the court, predictably, turned political in a diatribe against efforts to protect unborn life. Sotomayor, in a section joined by Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, claimed the effect of the law has been to threaten abortionists “with the prospect of essentially unlimited suits for damages, brought anywhere in Texas by private bounty hunters…”
She claimed that has chilled the opportunities for women to abort their children in the state.
Claiming abortion is a “constitutional right,” even though the Constitution does not mention abortion, Sotomayor accused the Supreme Court of betraying “not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government.”
The law, she charged, “allows defendants to be haled (sic) into court in any county in which a plaintiff lives, even if that county has no relationship to the defendants or the abortion procedure at issue.”
She also objected to other components of the law, including the provision for legal fees for plaintiffs but not defendants.
She cited a 1908 railroad case decision to support her agenda regarding pre-enforcement challenges and retroactive liability.
Sotomayor wanted state court clerks and judges to be left as defendants, since they are sufficiently “adverse” to the abortion industry representatives.
“State-court clerks are proper defendants in this action. This court has long recognized that ‘the action of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the state,'” she wrote.
She appeared to be arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case, complaining, “My disagreement with the court runs far deeper than a quibble over how many defendants these petitioners may sue. The dispute is over whether states may nullify federal constitutional rights by employing schemes like the one at hand. The court indicates that they can, so long as they write their laws to more thoroughly disclaim all enforcement by state officials, including licensing officials.”
She claimed dire consequences, “This choice to shrink from Texas’ challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions. I doubt the court, let alone the country, is prepared for them.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser, chief of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said, ““We celebrate that the Texas Heartbeat Act will remain in effect, saving the lives of unborn children and protecting mothers while litigation continues in lower courts.
“Meanwhile, we anxiously await the Court’s decision in the Dobbs case in which the court is directly considering the constitutionality of laws that protect unborn children and mothers prior to viability. Dobbs presents the biggest opportunity in generations to modernize our laws. We have great hope that the court will return the issue back to the people to decide through their elected representatives, letting democracy and consensus prevail.”
Just three years ago, Amy Walker* was a 19 year-old young woman who had dreams of attaining an education that would lead to a fulfilling career. Amy navigated through her share of challenges as she chartered her path. But underneath, she struggled silently with the weight of guilt, depression, and anxiety — because unlike most women, Amy had been gang-raped just a year earlier.
Seeking help for rape trauma, Amy was urged to abort
Amy told Live Action News, “I was attending summer school in North Carolina after my high school graduation and was at a gathering with friends when it happened. It’s too horrible to talk about, even today four years later. But after the rape, I suffered from anxiety and depression. I couldn’t form healthy relationships. I wasn’t on good terms with my parents. At that point, I just wanted the pain to stop. I took a drug overdose hoping to end my life.”
Amy’s family stepped in and got her into a rehabilitation facility to put her on a path toward healing and self-forgiveness. It was during her stay there that she started feeling unwell and sought medical treatment. Blood tests revealed she was pregnant. A nurse practitioner who was involved with her care, urged her to seek an abortion.
She had no financial resources and thought the man she’d been casually dating – who later died of a drug overdose – was the father of her child. She later determined through a DNA test that he was not. She knew she’d be solely responsible for parenting her baby. Yet, she couldn’t consider terminating her pregnancy.
“I had gone to an all-girls high school where I had been exposed to a very liberal environment,” Amy said. “Pro-life issues were something I never thought about. But as soon as I learned I was pregnant, my maternal instincts turned on and I just knew abortion wasn’t an option. I thought of acquaintances who had abortions and the emotional anguish they subsequently suffered as a result.”
But she faced mounting criticism and pressure from her family and those in the rehab facility because of her decision. It seemed as if the world was against her. “My grandmother wrote me a letter stating that I should ‘get rid of the baby,’ because she was concerned about the ‘stain’ on our family’s image,” Amy said. “That was very hurtful.”
It was during this time, when she was grappling with lack of emotional and financial support, that she briefly considered placing her baby with an adoptive family. And she wanted to ensure her child had a great start — something she was unable to provide. Yet deep inside, she felt a determination take hold.
Amy told Live Action News, “I know it’s not easy to parent a child under the best circumstances, but I felt in my heart that I was going to be fine. My baby gave me a reason to keep fighting.” She focused on taking care of her health and moved to a women’s home in Mississippi to prepare for her child’s birth. There, she became involved in the Embrace Grace program, surrounding herself with other single, pregnant women who were enduring similar life challenges.
When her son was born, it was a turning point in her life in many ways. She was now a single mother but after moving back to Ohio to live with her parents, she also became a passionate pro-life activist.
“I was looking for a pro-life organization where I could help make a difference,” she said, “And after meeting Allie with the Ohio Right to Life, she got me involved with Students for Life at Columbus State University. We participated in sidewalk counseling, and it was gratifying to help spread the pro-life message and to possibly change someone’s mind.”
Busy juggling motherhood and work, Amy still finds time to reach out to other women who are in similar circumstances, to stay connected and to provide support. As schedules permit, she hosts get-togethers. She has a newfound confidence earned from overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
“Taking care of myself as well as my son is very important,” she says. “Because I was a former high school athlete, I try to stay healthy by working out when I can and have even starting painting as therapy. I love snuggling with my son and enjoy reading to him during our bonding time. It’s the simple things in life that often bring much joy.”
Exclusive: ‘PreBorn Americans United’ offer first-person argument against abortion-homicide
By WND Guest Columnist November 29, 2021
By PreBorn Americans United
Something is needed to both educate and to shock the conscience of this nation after almost half a century suffering with The Great American Abortion Holocaust. What could be better than to hear “directly” from those most affected by abortion-homicide, from the potential victims themselves – preborn American voices crying fearfully and defiantly from the womb? Those “voices” are expressed in their own “Declaration of Rights” that also makes the first-person accusation that abortion is the most horrific crime against humanity in history – a holocaust of shame that will haunt America’s reputation and American consciences even more than slavery.
The first-person aspect of this column and of “A Declaration of Human and Constitutional Rights by PreBorn Americans” (read it here) is like a fictional play or movie conveying valid life lessons. In other words, readers will, as all of us do with novels and movies, accept the premise of the preborn “speaking,” which allows meaning to be conveyed from the potential victims’ perspective using some arguments and reasoning that generally can’t be made by the post-birth people involved in the abortion/life debate.
The Declaration is patterned after the Declaration of Independence but is written from the perspective of preborn Americans, a group heretofore silent and, therefore, abstract for too many especially those running from the scientific fact that every abortion kills an innocent human being.
The “Declaration … by PreBorn Americans” uses the introductory and concluding paragraphs from the 1776 Declaration adapted to this cause (reproduced below). The 31 numbered sections in the middle, entitled “It is a scientific fact” or “It is a fact …,” are used to discuss those facts and to make important points guiding readers through it one subject at a time.
The scientific fact that motherhood and fatherhood also begin at the moment of conception with the new life created and, from that moment, those parents do not have “a choice” but rather have a sacred obligation to nurture the child they just created (sections 1-2);
that mothers who abort their children are 81% more likely to experience subsequent mental health and other problems (section 22) and need to find forgiveness (section 2);
the scientific (sections 1, 3-5) and legal (section 6-7, 21, 24) facts that refute the Roe v. Wade ruling that preborn Americans are merely “potential life” (Roe, page 162) and “… that the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn” (page 158);
that the word “person” is a legal fiction that enabled the Roe Court to legalize the mass killing of preborn life, which would have been impossible if it had used the scientifically accurate phrase “living individual” (sections 23-24);
if the Supreme Court has the authority to declare that “constitutional personhood” begins at any time other than the moment science has determined when human life begins, at conception/fertilization, then there is nothing to stop it from authorizing abortion-homicide post birth as some Democrats advocate should be done (“The case for ‘after-birth abortion’ draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t”) (section 25);
that the medical profession’s participation in abortion-homicide has “blurred the line between killing and curing” (sections 16-17) and that such doctors are the moral equivalent of the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi “Angel of Death.”;
that abortion has its roots in the Marxist plan to destroy the nuclear family and American society (section 15);
that cruelty has its own psychology and lexicon and that the advocates for abortion-homicide are no different in that regard than the Nazis or Southern slave masters. The use of euphemisms (“it,” “clump of cells,” “P.O.C.” or “products of conception,” etc.) allows abortion-homicide advocates to pretend they are not killing a preborn child who will safely enter the world if left alone. Such dehumanizing language is used to desensitize both the public and pregnant mothers to accept abortion-homicide (sections 11 and 26);
that a mass delusion, a Big Lie, has captured the minds of all who believe there is “a right to choose” to kill preborn children (sections 12-14);
that the 63 million preborn babies slaughtered in The Great American Abortion Holocaust is 10 times the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews (section 19);
that the Democratic Party is the party of The Great American Abortion Holocaust (sections 10, 13, 21, 27, 29);
that America, to our eternal shame, is much, much worse that any child-sacrificing cult or primitive culture (sections 6,14);
We begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration, which, again, are patterned after, and make similar claims, as the Declaration of Independence:
A DECLARATION OF HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY PREBORN AMERICANS
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a persecuted People to assert among the nations of the earth our unalienable Right to Life to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to this just and worthy Declaration and to explain why we are making an accusation of the most barbaric crime against humanity in history regarding all those who have participated in or who have approved of The Great American Abortion Holocaust.
We, the preborn next generation of Americans, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all scientifically identifiable [DNA] human individuals – from the moment of our creation, at conception/fertilization – are created equal with all post-birth human individuals, that we are endowed by the Creator of us all with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are:
Please share this column with your friends on both sides of this most important issue as well as on social, print and broadcast media. And please consider supporting this effort with your greatly appreciated tax-deductible donations to bring you future columns 1) explaining the “Declaration by … PreBorn Americans,” 2) analyzing and reporting on the 138 briefs filed in the Dobbs case at the U.S. Supreme Court (some 5,000 to 12,000 words) and 3) reporting on the oral arguments and the decision in the Dobbs case. Donation details here.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Terrifies Pro-Abortion Left With ONE Opening Question
By Patty McMurray December 1, 2021
Justice Clarence Thomas has been a reliable Constitutional conservative on the Supreme Court for 30 years, but he has been known for his silence on the bench.
100 Percent Fed Up– Before Justice Scalia’s death, Thomas went 10 years without asking a question during proceedings. This week, Thomas broke his usual silence to ask a question that has pro-abortion activists livid.
” Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother? “ he asked. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a Mississippi law that would ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The attorney representing Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the organization attempting to overturn the law, had this to say:
“That’s not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body.”
Clarence has expressed his frustration with the court’s refusal to take up abortion cases in the past. In 2019, he wrote a scathing opinion about the court’s refusal to hear an Alabama case banning gruesome dismemberment abortions. “The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” Thomas wrote.
“This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control,” he further wrote.
Thomas has long been a target of liberal pro-abortion activists, as he is one of the most outspoken pro-life justices to ever sit on the bench.
If the Supreme Court were to uphold Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks, it would lead to abortion bans across the country. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute estimates that 26 states would impose further restrictions on abortion or outright bans. It’s no wonder the left is terrified of Justice Thomas.
Supreme justice: Overturning Roe would flood court with ‘stench’
Argues to keep faulty decision creating abortion ‘right’
By Bob Unruh December 1, 2021
Overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that during its lifespan of nearly 50 years has allowed in America a literally unlimited “right” to abortion, would flood the Supreme Court with “stench,” a pro-abortion justice complained on Wednesday.
The high court heard arguments on a Mississippi law that calls for a 15-week limit to abortions, instead of the vague “viability” standard that has been accepted for years, usually calculated to be about 24 weeks.
The lower limit actually would move the U.S. away from alignment with repressive nations like China and North Korea, which also use that standard, and into step with much of the rest of the civilized world.
Pro-life advocates openly have called for the court to overturn the flawed Roe ruling, which even its author, Harry Blackman, confessed was based on unknown factors.
He admitted, in the opinion, that “if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment.”
A report from Fox News noted that pro-abortion advocates on the high court bench raised numerous unrelated arguments in the hearing on Mississippi’s case.
Sotomayor’s was the “political ‘stench’ that may linger if the court overturns Roe,” the report said.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible,” she complained.
Of course the U.S. Supreme Court routinely overturns previous rulings when it determines, based on evidence and information, that they were decided wrongly.
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, arguing for the lower abortion limit, pointed out the failing of her argument with a single statement: “I think the concern about appearing political makes it absolutely imperative that the court reach a decision well-grounded in the Constitution.”
The Constitution does not mention abortion.
Sotomayor also charged that the Mississippi state argument in favor of its law is nothing but a matter of faith, which is actually protected in the Constitution’s First Amendment.
“How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor charged. “The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?”
Stewart explained those are reasons “to return this to the people because the people should get to debate these hard issues.”
If Roe is overturned, regulation of abortion would be the responsibility of states.
Sotomayor also argued for her belief about the pain that an unborn baby can feel.
Another justice who has advocated for abortion in the past, Stephen Breyer, suggested that perhaps Roe should remain the law simply because it was decided that way at the time.
The principle that the court generally avoids reversing its own precedents is called “stare decisis.”
Breyer said. “They say it’s a rare. They call it a watershed. Why? Because the country is divided, because feelings are running high and yet the country, for better or for worse, decided to resolve their differences by this court, laying down a constitutional principle in this case.”
But Stewart said Roe needs to be overturned because it is extraordinarily wrong.
A commentary by the Washington Examiner pointed out that another abortion supporter on the high court, the late Ruth Ginsburg, had called Roe “difficult to justify.”
“Roe removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process. It also created a new right to kill one’s baby in utero. In deciding Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe court set out to create a new version of women’s equality that the original suffragists would have soundly rejected. They did not care what sort of shoddy reasoning they needed to get there, and it really shows,” the commentary said.
The commentary explained, “Polls show that most people, regardless of their position on abortion’s legality in principle, support reasonable restrictions such as the one Mississippi is defending. For example, 65% believe that abortion should be illegal after 12 weeks, i.e. after the first trimester, according to a new poll from the Associated Press . This is a typical poll result. If people had been allowed to vote on this issue since the 1970s, laws in states where abortion is legal would probably look a lot like Mississippi’s. That, in addition to the specious legal reasoning behind the original ruling, is a sufficient reason for abolishing Roe and letting the voters decide.”
Democrats, in fact, have gone to extremes to promotion abortion up to the point of birth, or even after.
It was Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam who infamously argued for infanticide in a radio interview several years ago.
He said if a child survived an abortion attempt, “it would be kept comfortable if that that’s what the mother desired” and then there would be a “discussion” between the doctor and mother about whether the child would be allowed to live.
WATCH: Pro-Life Activists Sing The National Anthem Outside Supreme Court (VIDEO)
Pro-life activists demonstrated their patriotism in front of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday.
While rallying outside the Supreme Court, a large gathering of people sang the national anthem. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that centers on a Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of a woman’s pregnancy.
Many of the singing activists carried signs with messages such as “life is worth it” and “call me an extremist, but I think dismemberment is wrong.”
Mary Margaret Olohan, a Daily Signal reporter tweeted out the footage saying, “The pro-life side of the crowd sings the national anthem.”
Many feel the case has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would have major ramifications for abortion access across the country. The Mississippi Supreme Court will rule whether or not the 2018 statute prohibiting the procedure is lawful. Since the 2018 decision, many lower courts have ruled to prevent the ban, which allows abortion to be accessible up to about 24 weeks gestation.
Dobbs makes an exception in cases when the fetus has a disease that is “incompatible with life” or where the pregnancy poses a hazard to the mother’s health.
Late Thursday night, a friend texted me the latest about the Texas abortion law in the courts. This is the story:
Texas can continue banning most abortions after a federal appeals court rejected the Biden administration’s latest attempt to stop a novel law that has become the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.
The decision Thursday could push the law closer to returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has already once allowed the restrictions to take effect without ruling on its constitutionality. The Texas law bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.
It was a 2-1 vote.
So what happens now? I guess that going to the Supreme Court is the next step but they are already reviewing the Mississippi law. So the Court is more likely to send it back to Texas and keep the law on the books even longer.
There are two things driving the pro-abortion lobby crazy when it comes to the Texas law.
First, it does not ban abortions. In other words, you can still get an abortion as long as there is no heartbeat; and,
Second, it makes the life inside the mother, or the beating heart, the principal in the story. We are no longer arguing about “my body” but rather a vibrant heartbeat inside the mother. It humanizes abortion like nothing else.
I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.
Yes, it makes you wonder about all those “heartbeats” not aborted in Texas in the last few weeks. Wonder what they will say in the future about the law that let them live and grow up to make “choices.” Yes, they want to grow up and make choices if only we let their hearts beat.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.
18 States Tell Federal Court to Uphold Texas Abortion Ban ,Protect the “Sanctity of Unborn Life”
Dave Andrusko | Oct 18, 2021
On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned Federal District Court’s Judge Robert Pitman preliminary injunction against the Texas Heartbeat Law and allowed the continued enforcement of the Texas law.
Prior to the third ruling in Texas’s favor, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice announced that it intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the stay. And it did so this morning.
Last week, just prior to the 5th District Court’s decision, Indiana’s Attorney General Todd Rokita led an 18-state effort to protect Texas’ pro-life law. He said the federal appeals court decision “bodes well” for other states’ efforts to defend their sovereign authority.
“This pro-life win for Texas is also a win for Indiana,” Attorney General Rokita said. “And here in Indiana, we will continue to vigorously defend state laws that protect the sanctity of unborn life and the health of pregnant women.”
The order below threatens to expose every State in the Union to suit by the federal government whenever the U.S. Attorney General deems a state law to violate some constitutional right of someone, somewhere. Critically, the district court enjoined everyone in the world from enforcing all of S.B. 8 not on the basis of any legal right the federal government itself holds, but on the ground the law violates the putative “Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to pre-viability abortions,” which is, of course, a “‘right of the individual.’”
Rokita argues that
this case does not permit, much less require, the Court to address S.B. 8, but instead presents a legal question of considerable significance for federalism and the separation of powers—whether the Attorney General has inherent authority to challenge state laws as violative of individual constitutional rights even absent congressional authorization. And every relevant precedential and historical authority points to the same conclusion: The Attorney General has no authority to act as a roving reviser of state law, challenging as unconstitutional any rule with which he disagrees. Congress has repeatedly refused to grant him such authority; this Court should refuse to do so as well. …
Allowing the Attorney General to seek invalidation of any legal rule he believes violates individuals’ constitutional rights would amount to “government by injunction,” a practice “anathematic to the American judicial tradition.”
The Supreme Court also ordered all parties involved to submit briefs no longer than 13,000 words in length by next Wednesday, with any possible reply briefs due by next Friday.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, in May. The law prohibits most abortions once a baby’s heartbeat can be detected, often around six weeks gestation.
The law also allows private citizens to take civil action against abortion providers or any who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of abortion through insurance or otherwise.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision not to lift a lower court’s ruling to allow the law to remain in effect while the case is adjudicated.
“I cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages. But as these excerpts illustrate, the State (empowered by this Court’s inaction) has so thoroughly chilled the exercise of the right recognized in Roe as to nearly suspend it within its borders and strain access to it in other States,” she wrote.
Critics argue that the heartbeat abortion ban contradicted the legal precedent of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which prohibited laws that banned abortion before fetal viability.
In a filing Thursday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that the federal government “lacks a cause of action to challenge the constitutionality of SB 8 on behalf of a subset of Texas women” and is “not likely to show that it will succeed on the merits.”
“Multiple courts of appeals have held that there is no equitable cause of action that permits the federal government to sue for violations of citizens’ Fourteenth Amendment rights,” Paxton wrote. “Instead, terming SB 8 a ‘nullification’ of federal law, the federal government asks the Court to create a new equitable cause of action that will enable it to seek injunctive relief against the State of Texas.”
The Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect on Sept. 1 as it continues to be challenged in the courts by both pro-choice groups and the Biden administration.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from being enforced, per the request of the U.S. Department of Justice.
However, the injunction was soon reversed by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last week, another three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit granted a per curiam order expanding upon the earlier order, allowing the ban to remain in effect while the case continues.
Earlier this week, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Brian Fletcher asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit order allowing the abortion ban to remain in effect as the case is argued.
Fletcher claimed that Texas had “successfully nullified this Court’s decision [in Planned Parenthood v. Casey] within its borders.”
The 1992 high court ruling held that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”
Carol Tobias of the National Right to Life denounced the Biden administration’s legal tactics against the law. She said in a statement that the administration’s actions proved that “abortion is the single most important thing to the Biden administration.”
“In no other area, from Kabul to the border crisis to inflation, has Joe Biden called for a whole-of-government response except in supporting abortion,” stated Tobias.
“The Biden administration’s unconditional support of the abortion industry shows just how far pro-abortion Democrats will go to curry favor with abortionists and abortion supporters.”
Dr. Ben Carson has a way of putting things in perspective that endears him to pro-life activists. The neurosurgeon and the author of six best-selling books makes another compelling point about the issue of abortion that is sure to have everyone who opposes abortion concurring.
He pointed out how ancient civilizations have been criticized for the brutal practices of human sacrifice and child sacrifice — but he wonders if modern society isn’t “guilty of the same thing” because we have legalized abortion.
“Well, it’s interesting that we sit around and call other ancient civilizations heathen because of human sacrifice but aren’t we actually guilty of the same thing?” said Dr. Carson in reference to a question about abortion. “The good thing is the American populace is moving closer and closer to understanding that abortion is murder. Every year we’re getting better on that regard.”
Dr. Carson, the former director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, made his remarks on the Focus Today television show (online), hosted by Perry Atkinson.
He continued, “So, I think it can be done but we have to be, you know, smart enough not to allow ourselves to believe as the dividers would: ‘Hey, you got to stick to this and if you relent in any way you know you are abandoning your principles and your values.’ They’re playing us. We have to take the Esther approach: Get ourselves into positions where we can actually change it. Then we can save all the babies.”
A pro-life Christian apologist has shot down the argument that unborn babies are nothing more than “a clump of cells” that are part of the mother’s body and argues that embryos essentially drive their own development from the earliest stages of pregnancy.
Megan Almon, who has trained hundreds of individuals to defend the pro-life viewpoint through Life Training Institute, spoke to teens and young adults gathered for Summit Ministries’ five-day online student conference on Monday. The conference challenges people ages 16 to 25 to “think deeper about their personal faith and convictions.”
“Abortion is a travesty. … The unborn is not part of the mother’s body … not in the same way that my arm is part of my body,” Almon explained to the virtual audience of over 100 teens and young adults. “The unborn is attached to its mother, but not part of her body. … We are distinct organisms. … [The unborn] has its own unique genetic code that differs from its mothers and its fathers.”
To explain her stance, Almon addressed a few questions: “What is the unborn?” and “How can someone know exactly when one type of egg cell becomes another type of cell — a zygote?”
She said two scientific things must occur to create an unborn zygote. The first, she said, is that one cell becomes another type of cell if it changes in its material composition, which would create a new cell. The other way to know if a new cell has been created, she added, is if one cell changes how it behaves.
If the cell changes its makeup or if it changes behavior, something brand new is created — a human being, she added.
Almon said that it only takes about 250 milliseconds after sperm and egg meet for the plasma membranes of both cells to begin to merge to form a hybrid cell surface, and the material composition and behavior changes are also very abrupt.
“That egg cell, faster than I can snap my fingers, changes in its material composition and goes from being an egg cell that could survive about 24 hours in its environment, to being a brand new kind of cell that can now survive 100 years given medical technology because it is a human being,” Almon said.
“Within about three to five minutes, that cell changes behavior entirely and goes from being the egg cell whose sole job was to attract sperm, to being something like the death star that now repels [sperm] because of the formation of the zona pellucida, which causes that to happen. That new human being, who is protected, begins its earliest development along the way.”
According to Almon, who received a degree in Christian apologetics from Biola University and whose husband serves as director of programs and semester with Summit Ministries, humans are constantly developing.
Not only are humans distinct, but she said they are whole human beings at the zygote stage.
The speaker contends that both alive and dead cells come off the epidermis when humans scratch their skin cells.
However, after someone scratches off those cells, the ones that fall off, that are alive, will not live for much longer than a few minutes on whatever surface they land. She said that when humans scratch their skin, they are not mass murderers because the bodily cells that fall off the skin are part of them and contribute to their overall function.
However, she said an embryo — a zygote at the single-cell stage — is different from any other type of cell in the body. Sperm cells and egg cells are indeed alive, but those are also part of a larger organism and carry specific roles for that organism, she added.
“The embryo, even at the single-celled stage, its parts contribute to its overall function, and it goes on to do something that is absolutely remarkable,” she told attendees. “We hear language oftentimes in these conversations that debate the science saying, ‘Oh, it’s just a clump of cells, it’s just a mass of tissue,’ as if the unborn is some kind of constructive thing.”
“From the time you were an embryo, you were not constructed at all. You drove your own development from within, and you’re still doing that,” she continued. “Science tells us we are living distinct and whole human beings from the moment that we came into existence. That’s remarkable.”
One of the biggest hurdles humans have to overcome when talking about the pro-life view, Almon said, is the nature of moral truth and the idea of moral relativism. Moral relativism is a term used to describe philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different individuals and cultures.
“… Abortion most often is framed as something that is a matter of personal preference. … In other words, we hear things like, ‘I would never have an abortion, but I can’t tell people what’s right and wrong for them.’ That is moral relativism,” she explained.
“Men and women … we need your help when it comes to issues like this one. … If I’m right about the issue of abortion, this idea that some human beings don’t matter as much as others is playing itself out to the tune of around 2,000 to 2,500 human lives every single business day [in our nation alone],” she added. “It’s overwhelming to even think about. We have to talk about this because there is too much at stake not to talk about it. … Remember that ideas have consequences. … Dangerous ideas have victims.”
As Almon concluded her lecture, some of the young adults and teens watching asked questions in the chatbox on the virtual platform. Some wondered about different opposing views used to rationalize the pro-life stance.
“What is your opinion on the argument regarding topics such as incest, rape ending in pregnancy?” asked one viewer named Kathleen Rutler.
Almon responded that humans should start by emotionally acknowledging there is nothing easy about the topic of rape. She said humans should not simply dismiss the question with an intellectual answer but should “meet hurting people where they are and carry their burdens with them.”
Almon said the answer to the question points to another question: “If a baby is a product of rape, and the baby reminds the mother of how horrible that was, can she kill the baby?”
“I think the answer is no because even though rape is psychologically different, it still begs that question, ‘What is the unborn?’ If the unborn is human, which the science and philosophy clearly demonstrate, then we cannot kill the unborn for that reason,” Almon said.
Another viewer named Tessa Doerr said she is pro-life. However, she said a question she often ponders about is: “If the baby seriously endangers the mother’s life and there is no other help for the mother,” can abortion be deemed appropriate?
“We live in a broken world, where this sometimes happens, and this is rare when this is the case,” Almon replied, not giving a clear answer about if the mother or the baby should live in those cases. “… Abortion is the intentional killing of the human embryo or fetus. … The pro-life stance still stands [in occasions when doctors typically choose mother over baby in those cases]. …”
(CNS News) — In relation to an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning abortion, when asked if a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) [ who for years claimed to be a Vietnam veteran and is NOT] did not answer directly but said, “I’m going to wait for the Supreme Court decision.”
At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNS News asked Senator Blumenthal, “The Supreme Court this fall will review a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?”
Blumenthal said, “You know, I’m going to wait for the Supreme Court decision. Right now, abortion at that point in a pregnancy is legal and constitutionally protected, and I believe it should be.”
When asked again if the unborn baby is a human being, Sen. Blumenthal did not respond.
In the fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Specifically, the Court will seek to decide “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. (supreme.gov)
In 2018, Mississippi passed a law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. Under Roe v. Wade, abortions in most states are restricted past 24 weeks of pregnancy, the time at which an unborn baby is considered viable.
The Mississippi law has been challenged in the circuit courts and the state lost in those rulings.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could undercut Roe v. Wade or strengthen it, depending on how the justices rule.
A recent ruling from a United States district court judge has blocked the release of additional undercover videos recorded by pro-life journalist David Daleiden from the public eye.
In 2015, Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released footage of high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the sale of aborted body parts at National Abortion Federation conferences and trade shows.
The guerilla journalist’s team described NAF as a “criminal organization that has spent years conspiring with Planned Parenthood on how to violate federal laws on partial-birth abortion and fetal tissue sales.”
But now, it appears audiences will be prevented from viewing the “hundreds of hours of footage” exposing the abortion industry’s illegal trafficking scheme.
According to court documents filed on April 7, Judge William H. Orrick III awarded a permanent injunction to NAF, ordering that the undercover videos recorded by Daleiden are to remain sealed.
NAF had previously been granted a temporary injunction on Daleiden’s footage in 2015, but Orrick’s recent decision barred the release of additional footage indefinitely.
The Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm representing Daleiden, shared on its website plans to appeal Orrick’s latest decision — which the firm claims “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.”
“If these videos involved any issue other than abortion, you would have seen them by now,” TMS vice president and senior counsel Peter Breen told The Western Journal.
“And really, the abortion industry has been successful in eroding the First Amendment rights of undercover journalists and the American people for years, and we, the people, have to push back hard on that.”
This is not the first time that Orrick has ruled against Daleiden and the organization he founded. Even though Planned Parenthood admitted under oath to the accuracy of CMP’s videos, Orrick sided with the abortion vendor in 2019, when he levied a $16 million judgment against Daleiden.
According to Breen, the First Amendment concerns questions posed by the case that could impact more than just the pro-life community.
Indeed, animal rights organizations reflected these same concerns in a friend-of-the-court submission filed last month. Activist groups ranging from Animal Outlook to PETA argued that lower court decisions against CMP could set a standard where investigative subjects can sue undercover journalists.
The First Amendment’s free speech protections, the attorney went on to say, are not limited to the “person speaking.” The amendment is also intended to protect the right of the people to receive information from the speaker.
If NAF did not want its trade show recorded, Breen said they should have taken steps to “secure it.”
Considering that NAF failed to screen Daleiden and his fake fetal procurement company properly — even going so far as to invite the pro-life journalist to several conferences — Breen questioned how the videos could be “permanently concealed consistent with the First Amendment.”
The injunction prevented him from disclosing the videos’ full content, but Breen did say they contain material that would leave many people “shocked” if they saw them.
“And certainly, there’s a lot of material in there that the people of this country deserve to see,” the attorney said.
“Not just on the issue of fetal tissue trafficking, but on other abortion-related issues and issues about how — video that will — that would impact the way we govern ourselves, the way we decide to regulate abortion and the harvesting of the body parts of aborted children.”
Still, Orrick claimed in his recent ruling that he had reviewed the videos and determined they “disclosed no criminal activity.” But the judicial decision disregards an expert report from abortionist Forrest Smith, one of the country’s longest practicing abortion providers.
Contrary to Orrick’s findings, the abortionist wrote that the footage shows Planned Parenthood staff members violating the “medical standard of care.” But Orrick chose to ignore Smith’s expertise and rely on his personal assessment of the videos instead.
“And so when you have a federal judge sitting by himself and opposing medical experts, prosecutors, other legal experts — that puts that federal judge in the position of a censure over information that the American people need to see,” Breen said.
“David Daleiden and his group are, you know, they’re not — he’s not rich people. They’re just regular folks who decided to take on a great mission, and they need the protection of the courts.”
The Thomas More Society plans to take Daleiden’s case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
“And we’re fighting very hard, against both the state courts in California and the federal courts, to vindicate the work that David did so that — the people of the country who have seen David’s videos know that Planned Parenthood did some things that were heinously wrong.”
Planned Parenthood Medical Director: “Dismemberment” Abortion “Checkbox” Skirts Federal Partial-Birth Law
The remaining available undercover videos can be found at the link below
Procedure actually poses ‘high risk of infection, permanent scarring and infertility’
By Grace Carr
Daily Caller News Foundation
Doctor and Kansas Rep. Roger W. Marshall wrote an op-ed saying there aren’t any reasons why a late-term abortion is necessary to protect a woman’s health.
“To this day, I can’t think of a single scenario where I thought a late-term abortion would help to improve a woman’s mental health,” Marshall wrote in a Monday op-ed published by Fox News. “Contrary to the pro-abortion movement, regardless of the mother’s underlying medical health, I never saw the scenario where we had to choose between a mom’s life and a baby,” Marshall wrote.
Marshall is an obstetrician who has delivered more than 5,000 babies in Western Kansas over 25 years. He also served as an OB-GYN at a state mental health hospital and prison.
Pregnant women face much higher risks for uterine perforation and life-threatening hemorrhaging during late-term abortions, according to Marshall. The procedures also pose a high risk of infection, permanent scarring and infertility, according to the doctor.
“Point blank, late-term abortions are unsafe and are more dangerous than naturally occurring childbirth in almost any situation,” Marshall wrote.
An American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement, however, said that late in pregnancy, women can experience “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta,” which can be life-threatening.
“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death,” the statement, reported by The Washington Post, continued. “Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.”
A number of states, including Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, New Mexico and Maryland, are considering proposals to expand abortion access allowing women to abort in the late stages of pregnancy.
New York passed the Reproductive Health Act on Jan. 22, codifying a woman’s ability to abort under state law and allowing women to have abortions after 24 weeks in cases where “there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health,” according to the legislation.
Marshall called New York’s law “inhumane” for both mothers and children.
“I urge you to tell all of your elected federal officials to support the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which is the first step to immediately protect those babies who have survived botched abortions and mandate that they receive proper medical care,” the doctor and state representative also urged.
Exclusive: Terry Beatley takes what she learned from the ‘Abortion King’ to battle for the unborn
Feb 22, 2021
By Terry Beatley
It’s one the greatest love stories of all time, and if made widely known, it might cut the abortion industry’s political umbilical cord and stop politicians’ exploitation of young women and the brutal death of children. It might even lead more souls to Heaven.
Yes, it’s a story of God’s divine mercy for Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. who died on Feb. 21, 2011. This doctor regretfully cofounded NARAL Pro-Choice America and was once known as America’s “Abortion King.”
In an unplanned turn of events, I made this doctor a promise to teach America how he deceived our nation with the lie that abortion is “women’s health care” and to deliver his personal parting message across our country. In an age where science is worshiped and God is rejected by far too many, the legacy of Dr. Nathanson is for such a time as this – 2021. Science led him to the truth, and the truth led him to Jesus Christ.
Every American on both sides of the abortion issue should know this unknown piece of American history. That’s why every Tuesday evening on a Zoom conference call at 7 p.m. Eastern and Central until the end of June 2021, I’ll be equipping participants with the relevancy of Dr. Nathanson’s pro-life conversion, along with the eight points of propaganda he used in executing the deadliest American hoax.
I’ll also delve into related topics such as how Dr. Nathanson’s deception led to 1) the evisceration of parental rights, 2) a dramatic increase in breast cancer, 3) increased participation in a racist population-control plan called the “Negro Project,” and 4) the execution of a political ploy called the “Catholic Strategy” to persuade Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates.
God had everything to do with my life intersecting with Dr. Nathanson’s. At a prayer vigil in November 2009, I fervently asked the Lord for direction regarding what I was supposed to do with my research about Planned Parenthood, its racist agenda and how it endangers American youth.
His answer came: “Go and interview Dr. Nathanson. …” I was surprised and troubled by this idea. I knew the doctor’s history as the cofounder of pro-choice politics who had become 100% pro-life, but I couldn’t imagine why God would direct me to interview him or why the doctor would agree.
I called his home in Manhattan. His wife answered and informed me her husband was 83 years old and very frail with terminal cancer. For over a year he had denied all interview requests. Instructing me to put my request in writing and fax it to her, she promised to present it to him but warned not to get my hopes up.
To my surprise, and hers too, Dr. Nathanson agreed. I flew to New York on Dec. 1, 2009 – a day that changed the rest of my life.
I sat with him for one hour asking questions. Listening to him lament about his crimes against humanity, I sensed his remorse as incredibly authentic. It was nearly tangible.
My heart filled with compassion for this old dying man who had turned his life over to Jesus Christ 13 years earlier, on Dec. 8, 1996. He had been carrying his cross ever since, and he knew he was leaving behind a culture of death.
I felt compelled to make him an offer.
“Dr. Nathanson, … if you have something to tell America, I promise I will carry it across our nation for you.“
He seriously contemplated his answer.
“Yes, yes I do. Continue teaching the strategy of how I deceived America, but also deliver this special message. Tell America that the cofounder of NARAL says to ‘Love one another.’ Abortion is not love. Stop the killing. The world needs more love. I’m all about love now.“
Then his eyes slightly lit up with what I deemed as hope. Hope that Americans would one day be liberated by the truth he was leaving behind. I reached over and shook Dr. Nathanson’s hand. I knew not how or when, but I promised him I’d get the job done.
As part of fulfilling the promise, I worked toward defeating Virginia’s most pro-abortion, anti-parental rights state senator who had sold out to the abortion lobby years earlier. It worked.
Then, I started the nonprofit educational organization called Hosea Initiative, in 2011. In 2016, my book, “What If We’ve Been Wrong? Keeping my promise to America’s ‘Abortion King,'” was published which sent me on a speaking circuit in over 20 states, including the Walk for Life in San Francisco. Then, I signed a movie deal for a feature film based on my book and Dr. Nathanson’s life from childhood to conversion.
Later, the Hosea team developed two educational tools: 1) high school curriculum named “Becoming a Witness for Life,” which draws young people into the life and legacy of Dr. Nathanson and teaches the impact of competing worldviews, and 2) the FACT-CHECK booklet, “Who was America’s ‘Abortion King’?” which teaches the pro-life conversion story of Dr. Nathanson and his stealthy eight-point strategy of deception.
Now that everything is in place, I’m eager to provide weekly live training to equip the 75,000,000 people who voted pro-life in November 2020 with the knowledge of how to use the FACT-CHECK booklet. Why? Because we have to show God we desire a pro-life America. This requires winning more hearts and minds to support a culture of life. There is no better way to do this than learning how and why Dr. Nathanson lied, and then, boldly, confidently share it with others.
We have learned at Hosea Initiative that when pro-choice minded people are presented with these irrefutable historical facts, they begin to question their pro-abortion position.
America is in need of a true love story of God’s divine mercy and redemption. Join me on Tuesday nights, and invite your friends.
Below are the Zoom links to the call beginning Tuesday, Feb. 23: