KRLA Forum

By

You may need to refresh this page for the latest view.

THANK YOU to all who walked for LIFE!
Walk for Life

See the pictures!

4D Ultrasound

yawning infant

PHOTO CREDITS: 4D Ultrasound of fetal yawning at 30 weeks of pregnancy by Dr. Wolfgang Moroder. Baby yawning by Jeuwre. Human fetus at 10 weeks.

10 week old fetus

fetus at 10 weeks

Learn about Kentucky’s Dismemberment Law.

All Categories

All appear or reappear on the Index page, and disappear after a category or individual post is selected.

Watch for news on the KRLA Facebook and Twitter pages!

KRLA Forum

The Dismemberment Abortion bill that became law in spring 2018 is still in the court system. After being overturned at the District Court in Louisville last May, it was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court. In mid-September, a flurry of Amicus Briefs were filed on behalf of EMW.

During the trial in Louisville, Defense (Ky) had argued that three methods could be used for humane fetal demise in place of tearing limbs off babies while they are alive. Plaintiffs vigorously argued that none of those— the KCl injection, Digoxin injection, nor the umbilical cord transection— was suitable, for numerous reasons. The Amicus briefs uphold the court arguments.

The first Amicus was submitted by:

  • THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS (ACOG)
  • THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AMA)
  • THE NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT GYNECOLOGY (NASPG)
  • THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS IN WOMEN’S HEALTH (NPWH)
  • THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NURSE-MIDWIVES (ACNM) and
  • THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS (ACOOG)

Whew! That’s a lot of friends. If only these associations were friends of humankind, born and unborn.

They argue that the Commonwealth’s proposed demise methods are invasive, additionally risky, medically unnecessary, experimental, and unreliable, among other points. All of these were refuted by the Defense during the trial.

The second Amicus was submitted by numerous states, including:

  • NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAI‘I, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, and WASHINGTON, and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

This brief has a number of undue burden reasons.

The third was submitted by the

  • SOCIETY FOR MATERNAL-FETAL MEDICINE

Sounds so motherly.

Its main point is that the Potassium Chloride (KCl) injection method is not feasible in an abortion clinic. This was also refuted during the trial.

For background on this case, see here. An Amicus was filed by 16 states on behalf of Kentucky last July.


KRLA Forum
Third in a Series: Pro-life Laws Under Attack

The suit against Kentucky’s Heartbeat and Anti-Eugenics Laws is intent on maintaining the status quo. Kentucky’s defense asks Judge Hale to see Life in a new and better light.

Our wonderful attorneys want legal discovery to begin. They want the judge to consider whether EMW’s case actually benefits Kentucky women, physicians or the citizens who elect legislators to represent their views. We expect our lawmakers to create statutes that are in line with legal common sense and not merely court precedents based on tired, irrelevant rulings and opinions.

Kentucky, this is an opportunity for new vistas to a brighter future!

Let’s get personal

HB5 was delivered to Gov. Bevin for his signature on March 14, 2019, but had not yet been signed into law when EMW’s attorneys filed suit to oppose it.

In their opening document on March 14, 2019, the attorneys for EMW state that …“in violation of more than four decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence”, HB5 is unconstitutional because it bans abortion under certain circumstances, prior to viability.

While viability is their central point, many points are stated— 49 of them in their first document. Let’s look at point number three.
3 - “Plaintiffs challenge the Act because it undermines their mission to honor and support the decisions their patients make, whether it is to continue or to end a pregnancy based on their own personal circumstances and what is best for themselves and their families.” HB5 wrests the woman’s personal decision to get an abortion, and deprives her of the ability to make this personal decision.

HB5 has other persons in view. In part, the new law reads:
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has recognized that states have a legitimate interest in protecting the life of the unborn; and

  • Recognizing the human rights of an unborn child does not contravene prior Supreme Court jurisprudence nor undermine a woman’s right to self-determination or bodily autonomy, but instead upholds the state's legitimate interest in protecting the lives of unborn human beings and the rights of persons regardless of sex, race, color, national origin, or disability; and
  • The right to bodily autonomy and self-determination is separate and distinct from the termination of a pregnancy based on the unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, or disability; and
  • Moral and philosophical concepts of dignity hold that all human beings are entitled to receive ethical and humane treatment and are to be respected and valued in all phases of life, regardless of sex, race, color, national origin, or disability…

Our attorneys upheld all these reasons (and others) why discriminatory abortions are unfair as well as prohibited by state, federal and international laws that support the rights of all people to dignity, equality, and freedom from discrimination that is based on sex, race, color, national origin, or disability.

It is obvious we have a dilemma of competing rights. Judge Hale must decide whether to favor the right to abortion or the right to life of pre-born babies and the rights of states to protect them. Either way, he can quote from the law.

Which view will he take?


KRLA Forum

new_laws_b.jpg

Second in a Series: Pro-life Laws Under Attack

The initial document filed March 14, 2019, by EMW’s attorneys states its case as a constitutional challenge to HB5, the Anti-eugenics Law. Then on March 15 the complaint was amended to include SB9, the Heartbeat Law, even before these had been signed into law by Gov. Bevin.

Both laws were viewed as unconstitutional by the Plaintiffs. The U.S. Constitution provides for a right to privacy in Amendment 14, and that is how Roe v. Wade was framed to permit abortion.

What does it mean to be a strict constitutionalist? On the surface, it sounds good, but the assault on the common values of the America that was once a Christian nation, has twisted our constitution so that now a judge can view the right to abortion as sacrosanct if it is performed prior to viability. And today the term Christian commonly includes pro-abortion church leaders and members.

The Heartbeat Law makes perfect sense to the pro-lifer who views the pre-born baby as a person with standing before the law. After all, in Kentucky we have laws to prosecute anyone who wantonly causes the death of an unborn child in a criminal manner. We recognize the fetus as a person.

But on the other hand, we uphold Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, and call abortion a woman’s right. We say it is constitutional based on the 14th amendment,
A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.

So it is that the Plaintiffs have argued that both HB5 and SB9 are unconstitutional.

They won a Temporary Restraining Order in part based on this reasoning and could win the case at the District level as well.

We think our attorneys’ reasoning is much better. We will look at that in the next post.

VIABILITY OR PAIN?

This week the Plaintiffs filed a new document referencing the Alabama law to ban abortion (nearly totally) that a federal district court has blocked, stating:
Alabama’s abortion ban contravenes clear Supreme Court precedent. It violates the right of an individual to privacy, to make "choices central to personal dignity and autonomy." Casey, 505 U.S. at 851 (opinion of the Court). It diminishes "the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions." Id. at 860. It defies the United States Constitution.

The concept of viability, as already noted, is currently defined as "the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception." This definition has been disallowed by the Pain-capable rule that restricts abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy when an unborn child can feel pain. Kentucky passed the Pain-capable Law in 2017.

As well, viability no longer is limited to 24 weeks; LifeNews reports on a baby born at 21 weeks, the youngest ever to survive, who is doing vey well now. The article states:
Research published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 23 percent of premature infants survive as early as 22 weeks of pregnancy, but some hospitals have policies against treating babies at this early age.

Many, if not most, pro-lifers and pro-life medical authorities believe that a fetus much younger than 20 weeks can feel pain. The legendary Silent Scream video of an ultrasound that shows an abortion of a 12-week fetus reveals the pre-born baby thrashing to avoid the abortionist’s instrument and a wide open mouth when she is struck.

The seamless process of fetal development is so wonderful and amazing. To think of its interruption for callous reasons or from ignorance is heart-breaking.

The construct of viability presumes the mother and child are at cross purposes. The infant must be able to fend for herself or himself to be worthy of protection against abortion. Yet, the "viable" child is hardly independent and neither is the mother. Both need lots of help.

"No man is an island … " (John Donne, 1572-1631) We are interdependent. The Supreme Court needs new perspectives.

This blog series will pick up after the November 5 General Election.


KRLA Forum
First in a Series: Pro-life Laws Under Attack

Whatever became of the Heartbeat (SB9) and Anti-eugenics (HB5) bills that became law last March? Will discovery be allowed for the state of Kentucky to defend these laws?

You may be asking, what is discovery in a legal context? Here is Dictionary.Law.com’s definition:
n. The entire efforts of a party to a lawsuit and his/her/its attorneys to obtain information before trial through demands for production of documents, depositions of parties and potential witnesses, written interrogatories (questions and answers written under oath), written requests for admissions of fact, examination of the scene and the petitions and motions employed to enforce discovery rights. The theory of broad rights of discovery is that all parties will go to trial with as much knowledge as possible and that neither party should be able to keep secrets from the other (except for constitutional protection against self-incrimination). Often much of the fight between the two sides in a suit takes place during the discovery period.

Why has discovery not been permitted so far? Here begins a brief blog series to examine the EMW Clinic legal case against these laws.

We will look at documents filed by our attorneys and EMW’s on the PACER website. PACER is the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website that lets anyone create a login and search for case information.

If discovery is permitted by the judge, it is sure to be enlightening, but we may be on the brink of an opposing conclusion. Nevertheless, assuming Gov. Bevin is re-elected, the case probably will be pursued to the Appeals Court.

MANY ATTORNEYS

Four law entities are pursuing the case to quash HB5 and SB9 on behalf of the EMW clinic:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, NY, NY
  • Ackerson & Yann, PLLC , Louisville, KY
  • ACLU of Kentucky Foundation, Louisville, KY
  • O’Melveny & Myers, NY, NY

Kentucky is defending this case with attorney services from the Office of the Governor and the Cabinet for Health and Human Services since our Attorney General refused to defend them.

The opposition has termed HB5 the Reason Ban and SB9 the 6-week Ban. They have lumped these together in their suit that initially sought both a temporary restraining order and/or a temporary injunction as well as a permanent injunction, and now requests a summary judgment— asking the judge to reject these laws as unconstitutional, to dismiss the suit, and to permanently enjoin the defendants (our state) from "enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with SB9 and HB5…". (Enjoin in a legal context means to order.) That means never again could these issues be revisited in any legislation our senators or representatives propose.

The Judge in charge of this case is David J. Hale. From the Ballotpedia website, we read: …President Barack Obama nominated Hale to fill a vacancy on the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Hale was confirmed to the court on December 3, 2014, by a voice vote of the Senate.


KRLA Forum

chad_meredith_ta.jpg

Chad Meredith (addressing the media), our state’s Chief Deputy General Counsel, argued to retain Transfer Agreements law in Kentucky at the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court on August 8. Background on this case is here.

Many pro-lifers including KRLA staff and members heard the arguments and later participated in a media conference staged by Addia Wuchner, former representative for Ky’s 66th district. Reporters from WDRB-TV, the C-J and others covered the event and LifeNews has reported on it drawing from a story in CourtHouseNews.com.

Listen to the full proceedings from the hearing. As noted by CourtHouseNews, there is no timetable for the decision to be issued. Three judges heard the arguments by Atty. Meredith and attorneys for the EMW Clinic and Planned Parenthood. Two of them, Judges Chad Readler and Joan Larsen are recent appointees of President Trump. Judge Eric Clay was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Aside: Congratulations to Attorney Meredith who was recently promoted to Solicitor General. Read more.


KRLA Forum

bevin_media.jpgOn Thursday, August 1, Gov. Bevin held a media conference in front of the Governor’s Mansion. The topic was the July 31 fundraiser for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beshear that was hosted by EMW clinic owner Dr. Ernest Marshall. KRLA member Schu Montgomery attended and provided photos and narrative for this post:

Governor Matt Bevin emphatically stated that it is “blood money straight up”— the $4,000 contribution given by Dr Ernest Marshall, owner of the Louisville’s EMW abortuary.

“It is the job of the attorney general to defend the laws of the Commonwealth, whether it’s the heartbeat bill or dismemberment or eugenics bills,” Bevin lamented. “This is blood money - using monies from killing Kentuckians to fund a guy whose job it is defend the laws of this state— but refuses to do so.”

Gov. Bevin asserted that the Ernest Marshall’s maxed out on their contribution to Beshear on March 19th during the primary— then four days later the AG removed himself from the lawsuit defending two of the pro-life measures passed by the legislature!

Bevin urged the media to inform the public of this blatant disregard for human life and the peoples’ right to have their laws defended by the Commonwealth’s chief law enforcement officer.


KRLA Forum

The Supreme Court declined to hear an Alabama Dismemberment Abortion case on Friday, June 28. This case had been strengthened by an Amicus brief presented on behalf of 21 states through our Governor Bevin.

The Kentucky Legislature passed a law in 2018 to ban Dismemberment Abortion which was challenged in court by the EMW/ACLU, and they won. Background on this case is here.

Gov. Bevin has appealed to the Sixth Circuit to reverse the decision to strike the law, and has vowed to appeal to SCOTUS should the current appeal be denied.

In regard to the Alabama case, Justice Clarence Thomas commented that “…justices should not keep refusing to hear abortion cases…”

The below NRLC graphic shows that two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, currently support Dismemberment Abortion bans. This demonstrates that legislatures and judges do rule favorably on this issue, but not in all states where legislation is passed.

dismemberment_nrlc.png

In Kentucky we have a pro-life legislature but are frequently disappointed by the court system.

Let’s pray for a favorable outcome on the current Appeal, which we may very well see, based on the successful Ultrasound Law Appeal and the refusal of the Sixth Circuit to re-hear that case. (See previous post.)


KRLA Forum
FRANKFORT, Ky. | Friday, June 28, 2019

In a major pro-life victory for Gov. Matt Bevin and the people of the Commonwealth, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today denied EMW Women's Surgical Center's petition for rehearing of the House Bill 2 ultrasound case.

In April, the Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of HB 2 (2017), which requires an abortion provider to provide mothers with an ultrasound and a description of what it depicts, as well as the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat, before she chooses to terminate her pregnancy.

Earlier this month, the Louisville abortion clinic asked the Court to rehear the case en banc (before the entire bench) in a desperate attempt to undermine the Kentucky law, which passed with the support of more than 87 percent of state legislators.

Read more.

The Courier-Journal quoted the ACLU attorney from NY who called the law ‘medically unnecessary’ and not supported by medical groups including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association. Read more.

In the linked video, Gov. Bevin discusses the victory!


KRLA Forum

On June 11 the Bevin Administration filed a court document to oppose the petition filed by the EMW Clinic and ACLU challenging the successful Appeal that enforced HB 2, Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law.

EMW/ACLU wants their “do-over” case to be heard by the full court of judges— 28 in all.

Steve Pitt, General Counsel for Gov. Bevin, has stated:

"Rehearing a case en banc is an extraordinary legal procedure, not simply a flippant opportunity for a do-over. In this case, the panel majority faithfully applied the relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine that the legislation at issue is constitutional. Thus, granting en banc rehearing is neither warranted under the rules nor a useful investment of the Court's time.”

Read more.

Read the response of Adam Meier, Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, to the EMW/ACLU appeal here.

AG Beshear has refused to be involved in the case.


KRLA Forum

For background on the Ultrasound Law continuing legal case, see this post and this page.

The EMW-ACLU Appeal to overturn the Bevin Administration’s successful Appeal to save Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law— is pending and may be read by anyone who desires to have a PACER account. PACER stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.

The opening pages of the EMW-ACLU Appeal list all the attorneys who are working on the case. Then, a Statement of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests asks two questions:

  1. Is said party (EMW) a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly-owned corporation?
    Answer: No.
  2. Is there a publicly-owned corporation, not a party to the appeal that has a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?
    Answer: No.

Shouldn’t there be a third question?

3. Is there a publicly-funded corporation that will benefit from this Appeal if it succeeds?

Answer: Yes, Planned Parenthood receives $500 million annually from the U.S. taxpayers and will certainly benefit if this Appeal succeeds.

And how about a fourth question?
4. Is there an innocent public group who will be harmed financially if this Appeal succeeds?
Answer: Yes, the taxpayers of Kentucky will be the losers, since they will pay the tab for the extensive legal work performed by numerous attorneys from the ACLU of New York, the ACLU of Kentucky, and a law firm from New York, not to mention all the attorneys working for EMW since the suit was first filed— following the passage of HB2 in 2017 by the Kentucky Legislature.

Of course, a new Appeal could send the case to SCOTUS, so we assume it could take some time to determine who pays. We do not know all the legal ins and outs.

And another question:
5. Who pays the ACLU?
Not EMW. The ACLU does not charge its clients for its services. So, EMW can thank George Soros and others who donate to the ACLU for helping them to pursue their Appeal.

But maybe the full panel of the Sixth Circuit will turn down the Appeal. Watch for more news.


KRLA Forum

Our celebration about the successful Appeal of the Bevin administration to uphold Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law— was short-lived.

The Courier-Journal reports:

A Kentucky abortion clinic is asking a federal appeals court to rehear an appeal in the case of a state law that requires doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients prior to abortion.

A divided panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that the 2017 law is constitutional, reversing a lower court judge.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, the state's only abortion provider, filed a petition Monday asking that the full appeals court hear the case. The petition cites a First Amendment issue of ‘exceptional importance.’

What a disappointment. Stay tuned. Stay strong.


KRLA Forum

A disappointing ruling against Kentucky's law to ban Dismemberment Abortion was pronounced Friday, May 10, 2019. An update to the story published May 13 includes a TV interview with KRLA executive director Margie Montgomery. Click on the image.

dismemberment_collage_r.jpg

In the spring of 2018 the Kentucky legislature passed a law to end D&E abortions. The law states:

"Bodily dismemberment, crushing, or human vivisection" means a procedure in which a person, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, dismembers the living unborn child and extracts portions, pieces, or limbs of the unborn child from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or a similar instrument that, through the convergence of two (2) rigid levers, slices, crushes, or grasps, or performs any combination of those actions on, any portion, piece, or limb of the unborn child's body to cut or separate the portion, piece, or limb from the body. The term includes a procedure that is used to cause the death of an unborn child and in which suction is subsequently used to extract portions, pieces, or limbs of the unborn child after the unborn child's death; …

It was further legislated that there would be no penalty for the pregnant woman and that it would not apply in a medical emergency.

A related Amicus brief may be read here. Background on the legislation is here.

Governor Bevin has promised to appeal the decision all the way to SCOTUS if necessary. Let’s work hard to re-elect our incomparable pro-life Governor!

This news has been reported in the Courier-Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and other media. We will report more information in the coming weeks.


KRLA Forum

Sixth and final in the Amici series

When Planned Parenthood (PP) could not get a Transfer Agreement (TA) with any hospital in Louisville, it got one with U of Ky. in Lexington and Clark Memorial Hospital in Indiana. These were considered by the Bevin Administration (BA) too far from PP or in the case of Clark Co., not in Kentucky, which has the duty of oversight for the TA providers. Its jurisdiction does not extend to Indiana.

AG Beshear’s Argument 1 is that a state cannot rely on another state to protect a woman’s 14th amendment right. That was in response to the BA statement during the trial that a woman can get an abortion in Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, etc., which is already true given that Kentucky currently only has one abortion clinic, the EMW in Louisville.

Thus, AG Beshear’s statements that Kentucky should let Indiana contract with PP in Louisville for a TA, but should not consider other state’s abortion clinics to be suitable for Kentucky women, seem contradictory.

Argument 2A says that “The BA has unduly burdened women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights” and 2B states that TAs “provide no benefit to clinic patients.” We disagree.

Regarding Argument 2A, as stated above, women currently do get abortions in nearby areas over state lines, which shows they are not unduly burdened in their pursuit of an abortion.

As for 2B, we lobbied for TAs way back in the 1990s, and have never reversed our position on this important service for women.

TAs may not be frequently needed, but they are important to have should the need arise. A current story that underscores this fact is here. Another is here.

We urge the judges of the Sixth Circuit Court to uphold Kentucky Law.


KRLA Forum

Fifth in the Amici series

In the Amicus, Gov. Bevin is accused by our AG of seeking to place in his budget “a provision excluding state funding for any ‘affiliate’ of abortion facilities, which caused [U of L Hospital’s parent company] KentuckyOne* to believe that its state funding would be jeopardized by a transfer agreement (TA) between U of L Hospital and any abortion clinic.” (In business law an affiliate is not part of the company with whom it affiliates. Thus, unless UofL Hospital owned Planned Parenthood or vice versa, there is no formal affiliation that could be stated. By law, an affiliate of PP would be a direct subsidiary.)

The media carried a false story that the Governor’s office had pressured UofL to cancel its TA with Planned Parenthood. During the trial, representatives of KentuckyOne stated categorically that no one in the Bevin administration had pressured them to cancel the TA.

Kentucky’s attorneys brought out that the state is not opposed whatsoever to TAs —which state law requires; it was simply a matter that the existing TAs were not legal documents. How would a contract with a hospital department be legal? (See post 2 of the series.)

An aside

Kentucky law also states that public funds may not go toward paying for abortion services. This statute was on the books as early as 1980. Thus, UofL Hospital does not perform abortions but, needless to say, it would be lawful for it to assist in saving the life of a woman who was damaged by an abortion.

In 2017 the “no public funds for abortion” statute was revised to permit re-ordering of who is eligible for funds, and this year President Trump further adjusted that policy so TAs may be the least of PP’s worries at this time.

The Trump Administration’s new final regulations for the federal Title X family planning program make significant changes to the program and will:

  • Block the availability of federal funds to family planning providers that also offer abortion services;
  • Prohibit sites that participate in Title X from referring pregnant clients to abortion providers;
  • Eliminate current requirements for Title X sites to provide non-directive pregnancy options counseling that includes information about prenatal care/delivery, adoption, and abortion;
  • Prioritize providers that offer comprehensive primary health care services over those that specialize in reproductive health services; and
  • Encourage participation by “non-traditional” organizations such as those that only offer one method of family planning, such as fertility awareness-based methods.

Read more.

The American Medical Association, AGs of many states, PP, and others have filed suit in federal court to block the new Title X regulations, stating that they violate the Constitution and federal law.

And on it goes.

*In June 2017 the UofL Hospital split from KentuckyOne and currently is managed by UofL’s University Medical Center.


KRLA Forum

Fourth in the Amici series

AG Beshear argues that he is a constitutional officer whose source of authority is the people who establish the government, and his primary obligation is to the people. Drawing from language in a previous court case, he states the “Attorney General owes his primary duties to the people – not the Governor or General Assembly…”

Although we can’t speak to every possible or actual case, we do know that the citizens of Kentucky voted for the statute in question and most recently for a heavily pro-life legislature, so if AG Beshear’s primary obligation is to us, then he must uphold pro-life laws and not seek to strike them.

ky_metro_blue_areas.pngAfter all, in Kentucky, the majority is based on population, not on geography. The population has spoken. The geographic areas with a majority of pro-choice voters are only in some metro areas. (The graphic shows the 2016 Presidential Election with only Jefferson and Fayette counties in blue.)

He also argues in the Amicus that he “has not only the power to bring suit when he believes the public's legal or constitutional interests are under threat, but … even the duty to do so.” (based on a legal case concerning a mining company in 1973)

Because the regulation at issue in this action threatens Kentucky women’s constitutional right to access to abortion, the Attorney General is permitted to file this amicus to protect the constitutional interests of the public.
Under the Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky statute, and common law, the Attorney General is sworn to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and Kentucky and to defend the laws of the Commonwealth, so long as those laws pass constitutional muster.

In addition to protecting the U.S. Constitution, AG Beshear desires to support Judge Stivers’ ruling that the Bevin Administration not only defended a needless regulation with no basis in medical science, he even did so on an emergency basis, and threatened hospitals that participated in transfer agreements.

What exactly did the Bevin administration do?



Posts on this page

11/21/2019 6:33:09 PM
Flurry of Amicus briefs filed on behalf of EMS in HB454 legal case
11/15/2019 7:26:14 PM
Legal suit opposing Kentucky’s Heartbeat and Anti-eugenics Laws focused on status quo
11/1/2019 4:25:36 PM
Plaintiff attorneys claim constitutional right for EMW’s patients
11/1/2019 3:57:31 PM
Will discovery be allowed for the state of Kentucky to defend the legal case against the Heartbeat (SB9) and Anti-eugenics (HB5) laws?
8/9/2019 3:06:20 PM
Transfer agreements law appealed in Sixth District Court
8/3/2019 7:22:28 PM
Abortionist shows grateful support for AG Beshear
7/1/2019 2:45:33 PM
SCOTUS declines to hear the Alabama Dismemberment Abortion Appeal
6/29/2019 5:07:04 PM
Sixth Circuit denies EMW/ACLU petition for rehearing of HB 2 Ultrasound case!
6/17/2019 7:13:17 PM
EMW and ACLU want all 28 judges of the Sixth Circuit Court to hear their appeal to overturn the victory won by the Bevin Administration for Kentucky's Ultrasound Law
6/3/2019 8:26:21 PM
The ACLU seeks to appeal the verdict of the Sixth Circuit Court to uphold Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law
5/22/2019 1:41:57 PM
The ACLU has challenged the Sixth Circuit Court Decision to uphold Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law
5/11/2019 1:10:09 PM
Judge McKinley ruled Friday, May 10, 2019, that D&E dismemberment abortion will continue in Kentucky
4/18/2019 3:45:43 PM
KRLA is strongly in favor of Transfer Agreements
4/17/2019 4:23:43 PM
Did the Bevin administration pressure UofL Hospital to cancel its Transfer Agreement with Planned Parenthood?
4/16/2019 4:51:43 PM
AG Beshear believes Kentuckians are largely pro-choice

All Forum Headlines




Liberty meme

A Ryan Bomberger Meme. Click to read about President Trump's website to counter social media censorship.