(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) said today it is disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down common-sense safety standards for abortion clinics – regulations designed to protect women. The 5-3 decision in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt struck down a Texas law regulating abortion clinics.
The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the high court on behalf of more than 156,000 Americans and several pro-life organizations urging the court to uphold the Texas law, arguing that “abortion is a procedure fraught with hazards.”
“The Court missed a critical opportunity to protect women by upholding common-sense safety standards for abortion clinics,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “It is disappointing that a majority of the court voted to reject these safety standards – disappointing but not necessarily surprising since the majority once again relied on the ‘abortion distortion’ factor in reaching its conclusion. This decision underscores the bias applied to the issue of abortion. Justice Alito summed it best with his dissent: ‘The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.’”
Sekulow added: “Sadly, the majority embraced the false narrative of the pro-abortion industry – that childbirth is more dangerous to a woman than getting an abortion. The assertion is not only inaccurate, it is patently false. And it’s troubling that the majority bought into this false narrative.”
In addition to the more than 156,000 Americans represented in the brief, several other pro-life organizations have signed on to the ACLJ brief including the Family Research Council, the Texas Conservative Coalition, and The Houston Coalition for Life, which owns and operates a mobile Crisis Pregnancy Center which provides free sonogram services to expectant mothers.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law & Justice focuses on constitutional law, religious liberty, and pro-life issues and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
The signs were encouraging at the Supreme Court oral argument in the pro-life pregnancy center case of NIFLA v. Becerra . At issue is the constitutionality, under the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment, of a California statute which requires two things: first, that licensed pro-life...
In a desperate attempt to keep millions in tax dollars rolling in, and continue bombarding teens with their pro-abortion agenda, Planned Parenthood has taken legal action to stop cuts to their funding. Planned Parenthood, the abortion giant, killed over 320,000 innocent babies last year alone while...
The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has filed another brief with the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Court to review the case involving the undercover investigation of the abortion industry conducted by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The brief supports the petition...
The ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief today in the Supreme Court in an important free speech case from California. The case is First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera . At stake are the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers and, indeed, countless charitable agencies. Here's the background: