ACLJ Files Amicus Brief in Pennsylvania Abortion Funding Case

The ACLJ has filed an amicus brief in a state court to protect state laws that prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has made it more difficult to uphold these statutes, forcing the state to prove a very difficult, but not impossible, standard in order to protect the taxpayer dollars of its citizens and ensure that they will not be forced to fund the evil of abortion.

Our filing in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania defends Pennsylvania’s well-established right to favor childbirth over abortion and to allocate taxpayer dollars to further this right. As a result of Dobbs, the fight against abortion has shifted to the states, which is where the ACLJ continues to defend the right to life.

The ACLJ is no stranger to this case, as we filed an amicus brief when it was still before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case revolves around Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, which prevents taxpayer money from being used to cover abortions except in three limited circumstances. Abortion providers filed suit and challenged these statutes under Pennsylvania’s Constitution back in 2019.

Unfortunately, in its January 2024 opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the abortion providers. Specifically, the court found that the state’s decision to fund childbirth over abortion discriminates against women and is presumed unconstitutional unless the state can show that it is furthering a compelling state interest. The case is now back before the trial court, where the state is arguing that it, in fact, does have such a compelling state interest in protecting the unborn.

Further complicating this case, the abortion industry is now trying to use the case not only to strike down these statutes that ban state-funded abortions but also to establish a state constitutional right to abortion (“reproductive autonomy”), an inherently dangerous ruling that would undermine almost every restriction on abortion.

As we argue in our brief:

In its decision in this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has endangered longstanding statutes and case law that clearly define Pennsylvania’s interest in protecting fetal personhood and the right to use state funds to further this interest. Although this case is not about the right to an abortion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court thwarted the legislative process and interpreted the Abortion Control Act to be discriminatory against women. The Commonwealth now must overcome a presumption that its interest in protecting preborn life is compelling. While regrettable that the Commonwealth must overcome this hurdle, it does so easily, as its interest in protecting preborn life and favoring birth over abortion is one that, even under Roe, courts have found compelling and constitutional.

Even when the United States Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in Roe, the Court, in subsequent cases, still emphasized the right of the states to determine whether to subsidize abortion.

Further, Pennsylvania’s legislature has clearly defined the state’s interest in protecting the lives of preborn children. For example, Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act states that “the Commonwealth places a supreme value upon protecting human life.” As we went on to argue, even outside the context of abortion, Pennsylvania has a multitude of civil and criminal statutes that show the state’s interest in protecting the lives of preborn children.

Also emphasized in our brief are the vital principles of the separation of powers stake here. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court fell short of finding an alleged right to “reproductive autonomy” within the state constitution, but the current court is being asked to do just that.

As we stated, “Every judge-made right or judge expanded right shifts power from the political branches and extinguishes the right of people of Pennsylvania to vote on or even influence extremely political questions, such as abortion.” In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overreached and removed the ability of the Pennsylvania legislature to carry out its constitutional duties.

Finally, we informed the Commonwealth court that constitutionalizing abortion sets Pennsylvania’s judicial system on a long and tortuous path. As we echoed in our brief, “Just as the Supreme Court faced decades of abortion related litigation when it invented the right to obtain an abortion, Pennsylvania courts are in danger of setting themselves on the same path, even though the legislature has repeatedly affirmed its interest in protecting preborn human life.”

Although the battle has shifted to the states, the ACLJ remains on the front lines. We will continue the fight against abortion and closely monitor other developments at the state level nationwide.