The opportunity to provide important safety measures for women seeking abortions has been quashed by the Supreme Court. The ruling for the June v. Russo case was announced this morning. Justice Roberts sided with the liberals. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the dissent. The KRLA Media Release is here.
KRLA Staff and Friends
You may need to refresh this page for the latest view.
Attention All Right to Lifers!
The 2020 Walk will be held on Saturday, September 12, starting from the Christian Academy Rockcreek Campus, 3110 Rockcreek Drive in St. Matthews, across from Seneca Park walking track. Learn more. Get involved!
10 week old fetus
Learn about Kentucky’s Dismemberment Law.
An amicus brief on behalf of Louisiana (see related article) was filed by the Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) to assist SCOTUS in its review of La. Department of Health v. June Medical Services LLC. A related article in the Wall Street Journal is here.
The AAPLOG brief questions whether ACOG (the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) is truly objective in its abortion views, and accuses ACOG of being an abortion advocacy organization.
On page 15 of the brief, AAPLOG states that it has an interest in showing that ACOG “does not represent the views of either its membership or the 85% of obstetricians and gynecologists in the United States who do not perform abortions.”
An excerpt makes clear how ACOG has reversed its pro-life stance over the years:
ACOG’s 1959 Manual of Standards in Obstetric-Gynecologic Practice permitted abortion only “where the death of the mother might reasonably be expected to result from natural causes, growing out of or aggravated by the pregnancy, unless the child is destroyed.” The Manual also mandated that abortions could be performed only in accredited hospitals. ACOG’s Committee on Maternal Welfare, noting that the justifications for therapeutic abortions were disappearing, “hoped that they may reach an absolute minimum within the foreseeable future,” doing away with abortions altogether…
…As of the 1950s, ACOG’s contribution to public debate about abortion was based solely upon medical science. Dr. Duncan Reid (ACOG board member) of Harvard Medical School argued that “the medical profession should not become actively involved in debates about social mores. … [T]he emergence of abortion and sterilization as political issues would challenge the scientific basis on which physicians’ decisions were based. Reid said, ‘If it [abortion] becomes a social problem then the medical profession has to settle the social problem, and I think we, as doctors, are placed in a position where we do not belong.’”
The amicus brief delineates ACOG’s history, and discloses that in every major abortion case, ACOG has argued consistently against any limitation of abortion. The document cites from 19 legal cases and provides many references to statements in ACOG reports, legal briefs and other sources. Read more!
IF ONLY this brief could have been filed on behalf of Kentucky in any of the numerous ACLU/EMW/PP legal suits which have claimed that ACOG is the scientific, medical authority on the abortion issue, how might the outcomes for our pro-life laws been affected?
Immense THANKS to AAPLOG for revealing the slippery slope engineered by ACOG over 50 years to re-make abortion as medical “care”.
Second in the License to Abort Little Ones series
On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Louisiana’s 2014 Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, and La. is excited! We should be, too. This case could affect the outcome of the Kentucky Transfer Agreement (TA) case that currently awaits resolution at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Will the TA panel of judges wait to hear the SCOTUS decision on the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act before handing down its ruling for Kentucky? There is a common sense practice of not investing too much time when it is known that a similar case may affect a lower court ruling.
The Appellate Court does NOT share any information on when an opinion will be issued. SCOTUS may not rule for many months, and the Sixth Circuit Court may wish to get our TA case off their docket soon. No one knows.
The La. case is similar to a Texas case which SCOTUS ruled against in 2016.
The Texas provisions under debate in the case required that abortion clinics be licensed as ambulatory care facilities with all the amenities of a surgical center, and that clinic doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
"Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution," said the 5-3 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer. Read more.
Breyer’s decision was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor. Barak Obama applauded it.
Like the Texas case, the La. law requires the abortion clinic to have formal agreements with local hospitals allowing them to transfer patients if needed.
Pundits have observed that SCOTUS accepted the La. case to review because of its new composition that includes Judges Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Otherwise it would have stood on precedent because of the similarity of the cases.
So, if Judges Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor vote to disallow the La. law, will Chief Justice John Roberts join Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, assuming they vote to uphold it?
An article on LifeNews.com encourages pro-lifers to be aware of this SCOTUS trial and to actively make known your concern for aborted women’s safety.
The Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s Appeal to revisit D&E abortion and ban it, but if Kentucky’s current appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court fails, could SCOTUS view this issue in a new light?
An excellent Friend of the Court brief has been filed by 16 states in support of Kentucky’s Appeal to reverse the District Court decision not to uphold HB454, our law banning Dismemberment Abortion.
HB 454, which bans the brutal and grotesque practice of live dismemberment abortions, was passed by the 2018 Kentucky General Assembly with overwhelming bipartisan support from legislators and signed into law by Gov. Bevin. The ACLU and a Louisville abortion clinic quickly challenged the law, and a U.S. District judge in May ruled in their favor.
The attorneys general of Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia argue that the Sixth Circuit should reverse the District Court's erroneous opinion.
In their brief, the attorneys general assert that the District judge's ruling “misapplied the law in three ways”: 1) HB 454 does not place an undue burden on women seeking an abortion, 2) it does not place an undue burden on abortion providers, and 3) it should not have been struck down in its entirety by the lower court. (emphasis added)
Read the Amicus Brief here.
Recently, SCOTUS declined to review the Alabama Dismemberment Abortion case. Judge Clarence Thomas joined the progressives on this vote and noted in his concurrence: “Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard, we cannot continue blinking at the reality of what this Court has wrought.“
Judge Thomas pointed out that in previous rulings SCOTUS has given credence to abortion providers’ claims that other methods of abortion are too risky. Court precedents are roadblocks. The Alabama case did not present a way to re-argue the precedent.
Though the Alabama and Kentucky cases are very similar, the Amicus Brief on behalf of Kentucky’s law highlights the ‘undue burden’ legal hitch— Attention Judge Thomas!
KRLA staff and friends sat through the HB454 trial proceedings. We know that our state attorneys presented excellent arguments for why other methods of abortion are in fact LESS risky than D&E, since D&E requires MANY passes into the woman’s birth passage to grab and tear apart the baby’s limbs, whereas a single injection of digoxin will end the life of the fetus. No need to insert steel instruments into the woman’s body numerous times, risking injury to the uterus and more.
Somehow there was no time allotted for Kentucky’s expert witness who came to explain the needle guide that makes the digoxin injection simple and very safe. Our lead attorney Stephen Pitt strenuously objected. The Judge agreed his written testimony could be included in the summary filed following the trial.
So, should Kentucky’s HB454 case need to be appealed to SCOTUS, we believe that Judge Thomas and others may see a reason to revisit the ‘undue burden’ issue. Perhaps the confusion of the numerous suits and rulings have numbed all of us to the real issue at hand.
For any who may want to review the pro-life legislation that SCOTUS has considered since the appointment of Kavanaugh, see here.
Thank You, Kentucky State Legislators and Governor Matt Bevin
The four bills that were introduced by Kentucky’s Pro-life Caucus on January 10 ALL passed the current legislative session. We know our Governor will sign them all!
SB 227, introduced on Feb. 15 to protect Born Alive Infants, did not make it to the finish line. We hope this bill will be re-introduced next year.
How does it feel to live in a pro-life state? Wonderful! What relief we pro-lifers feel (!), knowing that the majority of our legislators have the deepest concern for pre-born babies. Perhaps there are many things in your community and state that you would like to see changed, but at least we do have respect for life. The majority of us are holding firm that our U.S. Constitution means what it says about our Right to Life.
The bills, SB 9, the “heartbeat bill”; SB 50, abortion pill reporting requirements AND the doctor must explain the Abortion Pill Reversal Pill to the client; HB 5, no abortion for discriminatory reasons based on sex, race, color, national origin or disability; and HB 148, to end abortion if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned by SCOTUS— ALL had bipartisan support. That is further proof that Kentucky is, in the main, PRO-LIFE.
Will Kentucky be the first state NOT to have an abortion clinic? There is national speculation about that. With the ACLU challenges to our pro-life laws and bills not yet signed into law, we can’t say.
Currently we have only ONE, the EMW clinic in Louisville. And, Planned Parenthood has a clinic in Louisville with aggressive plans to establish a larger presence.
We can’t rest on our laurels but we can enjoy the moment. Today, we are passionately grateful and taking the day off. (But we are in the office!)
Enjoy the full testimony of Abby Johnson at the Public Protection Committee hearing.
TAGSPolitical Action Transfer Agreement Artists for Life Pro-life Events Euthanasia D&E Law Appeal Eugenics Legislation Ultrasound Law Appeal Planned Parenthood PEOPLE Video Louisville
National news & leader’s tweets
Posts on this page
6/29/2020 9:00:16 AMThe Louisiana June v. Russo case has been decided in favor of abortion providers
3/7/2020 8:28:04 AMSCOTUS takes up Louisiana case; decision may dramatically affect abortion industry
2/28/2020 12:20:43 PMSupreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 4 in Louisiana case relating to safety standards for abortion clinics
7/31/2019 10:30:44 AMIf Kentucky’s current HB454 appeal at the Sixth District Court fails, could SCOTUS view the issue in a new light?
3/15/2019 10:35:56 AMKentucky pro-life caucus good for their word
Links of interest
A Ryan Bomberger Meme. Click to read about President Trump's website to counter social media censorship.