This is going to be a major showdown at the Supreme Court against the abortion industry, as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a big abortion related case – a case we urged the Court to take.
Months ago we told you how we filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court of the United States in Gee v. June Medical Services, a case that could break new ground in protecting babies from abortion. As we explained then:
The case involves the constitutionality of a Louisiana state law requiring doctors who perform abortion to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 2016, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Louisiana’s statute, holding that the requirement did not impose a substantial burden on women’s abortion access. The Fifth Circuit explained how the Louisiana law had minimal impact on abortion clinics within the state.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court granted a stay of the Fifth Circuit’s decision and the abortion facilities challenging the law asked the Court to review the case. The State of Louisiana will defend the Fifth Circuit’s ruling before the Court but the state has also asked the Court to consider the issue of whether abortion facilities should be continued to be allowed to challenge state health laws regulating abortion clinics. The so-called “right to abortion” belongs only to pregnant women. Yet the abortion industry has filed countless lawsuits claiming that they have the right to defend women’s access to abortion. As a general rule in our legal system, you cannot sue to defend someone else’s rights. Most abortion facilities care much more about their own bottom line than about the health and safety of women. It is a travesty that these abortion facilities are permitted to challenge every state legislative effort to protect women’s health.
The safety of women at abortion facilities is a huge concern. Too many abortion clinics have abysmal track records, and yet they want the power to challenge state safety regulations of abortion clinics. This simply cannot be allowed. History has shown we can’t just take their words for it when it comes to the health and safety of women in their facilities.
As our amicus brief stated:
Moreover, abortion businesses, which have profit motives for women to choose abortion, cannot be relied upon to present the full picture. Indeed, such businesses may be using statistics – despite the flaws described above – to help sell abortion to trusting lay women.
The Supreme Court has now agreed to review this case. As reported:
The Supreme Court announced . . . it would take up an abortion case from Louisiana, setting the stage for a national fight over a contentious issue during a presidential election year.
It will be the first abortion case taken up by the Supreme Court since President Trump's two nominees — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were confirmed to the bench.
The case centers on the law in Louisiana that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a requirement that critics say is designed to force abortion clinics to close.
Actually what admitting privileges would force is increased concern for the safety of women and babies that manage to survive botched abortion procedures. Without them, babies that somehow manage to be born alive despite abortionists’ efforts can be denied proper lifesaving healthcare and die on the table. Or worse. As in the case of infamous abortionist Kermit Gosnell who not only killed babies that survived failed abortions, but caused horrendous injury and once even death to his patients.
The impact of this case could be monumental. In fact, it could impact other pro-life laws. Earlier this year we told you about another historic victory for defenseless, unborn babies, when the State of Louisiana took a bold, bipartisan stand to protect life. The Louisiana House overwhelmingly passed the pro-life “heartbeat bill” in 79-23 vote. Louisiana’s Democrat Governor John Bel Edwards signed the bill banning abortions the moment a heartbeat can be detected, adding Louisiana to a list of decidedly pro-life states like Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Missouri.
At the time he signed the bill, Governor Edwards made a statement calling on all other state lawmakers to protect life:
“As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.
I ran for governor as a pro-life candidate after serving as a pro-life legislator for eight years. As governor, I have been true to my word and beliefs on this issue.”
Abortionists cannot be allowed to operate fast and loose without some form of checks in place. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up this case, we are preparing to file another brief opposing the abortionists challenge to admitting privileges that protect patient health and safety.
We must defend precious unborn babies and support laws that offer alternatives to desperate mothers in crisis – something the abortion industry is firmly against.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, we need you with us.
As we aggressively take legal action to defeat the abortion behemoth and defend life, your gift today will be DOUBLED and could help us save lives. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
After a nearly two-month trial, on November 15th, a San Francisco jury ruled against David Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), its former board members, including our client, and the investigators in Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress . This is the case filed by Planned...
We at the ACLJ are constantly fighting for the unborn. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we discussed a series of cases we are engaged in, fighting for the unborn and Virginia’s new abortion constitutional amendment. A lot of these cases have huge ramifications but we’re looking at the first case on the...
You may have seen this past week headlines from a variety of news outlets loudly proclaiming the death of conscience rights: “ Trump’s ‘conscience rule’ for health providers blocked by federal judge .” “ Second federal judge strikes down Trump’s ‘conscience protection’ rule for health care...
On today’s Jay Sekulow Live , we talked about two different cases. The first, being the fight over the President’s taxes likely heading to the Supreme Court. The second, being the ACLJ’s fight for American soldiers before the ICC. The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of...