Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
The Washington Times (AP): An abortion rights organization filed the first court challenge Friday to a Louisiana law that will require doctors who perform abortions to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.
The Baltimore Sun: This prompted Alliance Defending Freedom to come to the defense of pro-life groups Care Net, Heartbeat International, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and the Vitae Foundation. All four groups contend that that city is wrong to subpoena organizations that are not parties to their lawsuit, have no offices in the city, and are located across the country.
New York Times: “Health clinics offering abortions in Texas filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday to block a new state rule that could shut down more than half of the state’s remaining providers this fall, forcing women seeking an abortion in southern and western Texas to drive several hundred miles each way or go out of state.”
Associated Press: “The federal lawsuit announced Wednesday by Planned Parenthood Arizona and the Center for Reproductive Rights alleges that the new rules required under a 2012 law will effectively block the ability of many women to use medication abortions.”
Bloomberg: “Abortion-rights advocates and North Dakota settled a lawsuit over a requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic, according to state court records.”
Washington Times: “Steven H. Aden of Alliance Defending Freedom lamented Monday’s news, saying, ‘New medical knowledge about the pain children can experience in the womb and the potential harms to women shouldn’t be ignored in any civilized society.’”
InsuranceNews.net: The Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) issued the following news release . . .
AP: A federal appeals court heard arguments Monday on whether the state of Texas can enforce a law that led to the closing of several abortion clinics, a case that ultimately appears bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Charisma News: In October a lower court ruled to strike this requirement. The following month, Alliance Defending Freedom, Bioethics Defense Fund and Family Research Council filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in favor of the requirement. “The health and safety of women is more important than an abortionist’s bottom line—including the bottom line of Planned Parenthood, which is the nation’s biggest abortion seller,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “The fact that Planned Parenthood opposes these commonsense health requirements just proves they care more about profiting from cheap chemical abortions than about women’s health and safety.”
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden and Bioethics Defense Fund Chief Counsel Dorinda C. Bordlee will be available for media interviews immediately following the state of Texas’s oral arguments in a federal appeals court Mondayregarding the state’s abortion law.
LifeNews: Every so often the government gets it right on abortion. While the federal government and most states are fully prepared to push unlimited abortion on demand paid for at taxpayer expenses without any limits whatsoever, some governments still understand that human rights begin when human life begins — at conception, before birth. Such is the case with the state government of North Dakota.
How Appealing links to coverage and more information on the case.
Center for Reproductive Rights: On the 63rd International Human Rights Day commemorating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which protects all people’s rights to equality and freedom from discrimination, the Center for Reproductive Rights is calling for all governments to recognize access to contraception as a fundamental human right.
Update: Obamacare abortion mandate litigation and Texas abortion litigation | Casey Mattox on FRC Washington Watch
Casey Mattox appeared on FRC Washington Watch to discuss Gilardi v. Sebelius and other challenges to the Obamacare abortion mandate. Planned Parenthood’s pending challenges to Texas abortion regulations are also discussed. | MP3 audio 11:32 mins |
Lyle Denniston at Constitution Daily: The court has never abandoned the constitutional line that a women has a right to end a pregnancy prior to the point at which a doctor finds the fetus to be “viable” – that is, capable of living outside the womb. But if a restriction is seen as a regulation of the abortion right, to fulfill some official policy or interest of the state government other than moral hostility to abortion, then it has a much greater chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge.
Fox News: The court by a 5-4 vote denied a request by Planned Parenthood to block a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows key parts of the Texas abortion law to stay in effect while the case plays out.
MySanAntonio: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office urged the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to allow the state to continue enforcing strict abortion restrictions. Abbott’s office said that clinics seeking to stall the state law haven’t proven that the requirements post an undue hardship for women.
“Introduction of Women’s Health Protection Act is Critical Step in Safeguarding Reproductive Rights for All U.S. Women” | Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights: The Women’s Health Protection Act creates federal protections against state restrictions that fail to protect women’s health and intrude upon personal decision-making. Under the Women’s Health Protection Act, states could no longer impose oppressive restrictions on reproductive health care providers that apply to no similar medical professionals.
Arizona Daily Star: Nikolas Nikas, an attorney for the Bioethics Defense Fund , which is leading the effort, told the justices much more is at stake. “Aborting children with disabilities is a form of discrimination that threatens to devalue the lives of people born and living with disabilities,” Nikas wrote. And he said that is a bad precedent that the Arizona law is designed to prevent.
American-Statesman: In a brief filed late Tuesday afternoon, lawyers for Texas urged U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to allow the state’s abortion regulations to remain in effect while an intermediate court weighs the constitutionality of House Bill 2.
SCOTUS Blog: Arguing that doctors and clinics are exaggerating the impact of a new abortion control law on women in Texas, state officials on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to allow the state to continue enforcing that law while an appeals court reviews its constitutionality.
Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate: It’s been a day of body blows for reproductive rights. On Thursday night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision to temporarily block a provision of the omnibus Texas abortion law that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
How Appealing reports and links to documents released and filed by Planned Parenthood.
LifeNews: The Planned Parenthood abortion business is taking its battle to kill a Texas pro-life law that has already resulted in temporarily closing abortion clinics across the state to the U.S. Supreme Court.
LifeSiteNews: As many as 12 abortion facilities will not be able to perform any abortions starting today, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court and ruled that all the provisions of a Texas pro-life law could go into effect immediately.
Fox News: A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. | Opinion
“Access to EC in Latin America Takes Center Stage at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” | Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights: Healthcare professionals, lawyers, policymakers, and reproductive health advocates are gathering today in Washington, D.C. to testify on emergency contraception restrictions in Latin America, specifically in Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru and Honduras. The Center for Reproductive Rights is a lead presenter at the hearing hosted at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—the main human rights monitoring body for the Americas.
Bloomberg: Texas asked a federal appeals court in New Orleans for an emergency order blocking a U.S. judge’s ruling yesterday in Austin striking down some state abortion restrictions as it seeks to enforce new limits on the procedure that were set to take effect today.
The health and safety of women is more important than an abortionist’s bottom line–including the bottom line of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion seller. The court was wrong to say that Texas can’t protect women by requiring an abortionist to have privileges at a local hospital where they can be treated in the event of complications.
AP: New abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and will not take effect as scheduled on Tuesday, a federal judge has ruled.
Boston Globe (AP): A federal court challenge to new limits on abortions in Texas may hinge on complicated legal questions created by a myriad of U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the past decade on when a state may ignore medical considerations and limit the procedure, attorneys in the case argued Wednesday.
Thomas More Society Argues In The North Dakota Supreme Court For The Catholic Conference: No State Constitutional Right To Abortion
Yesterday, on behalf of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, the Thomas More Society filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the North Dakota Supreme Court defending the State’s law regulating medical abortions. The case, MKB Management Corp. v. Burdick, is especially important because the critical issue in the appeal is whether the North Dakota Constitution recognizes a right to abortion.
LifeNews: Leading abortion advocacy groups today filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the pro-life law Texas passed over Wendy Davis’ infamous objections that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law in July after weeks of debate in the state legislature and passage of the bill despite an unruly pro-abortion mob.
Dallas Morning News: On Friday morning, the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood said they will announce “a new joint effort in support of women’s health.”
ABC (AP): A federal judge has dismissed part of a lawsuit challenging a new North Dakota law that blocks abortions based on unwanted gender or a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome.
The Oklahoman: An Oklahoma County judge on Monday blocked a law from taking effect that would have kept in place a requirement that girls younger than 17 obtain a prescription before receiving the “morning after” emergency contraceptive.
Lawyers.com: Planned Parenthood has scaled back its federal lawsuit against Kansas’ sweeping new abortion law to home in on a specific free speech issue. The suit is now focused on a new requirement that abortion providers link their websites to a state website that features hotly contested claims about abortion.
Center for Reproductive Rights: The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a new legal challenge today against an Oklahoma state law placing unnecessary barriers on women’s access to emergency contraception.
Judge temporarily blocks North Dakota’s six-week abortion ban, calling it ‘clearly unconstitutional’
Washington Post: A federal judge in North Dakota on Monday blocked the state’s law banning abortions as early as six weeks after fertilization, ruling the measure cannot take effect until the legal challenge it faces is resolved.
Texas Tribune: As an omnibus bill restricting abortion access in Texas makes its way to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk, opponents of the measure are already weighing the possibility of suing the state to stop implementation of the regulations, which lawmakers approved last week.
AP: A 2011 North Dakota law that outlaws one of two drugs used in nonsurgical abortions violates the state and U.S. constitutions, a state judge ruled Monday.
Townhall: Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said of the appeals court’s decision in the Montgomery County case, “Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of abortion sellers. The court of appeals affirmed that a hostile government cannot force pro-life centers to speak a message contrary to their interests without the highest form of justification for doing so.”
One News Now: And the local government’s orders to abortion facilities? “They don’t apply the government disclaimers to pro-abortion centers,” says attorney Matt Bowman of Alliance Defending Freedom. Bowman is serving as co-counsel representing the Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center in the lawsuit. Bowman, Matt (ADF)“They only make pro-life centers say things,” the attorney continues, “because mandated speech is designed to scare women away so that they will not actually be able to choose the life-affirming help that pro-life centers offer.”
4th Circuit rules on whether gov’t can force speech of pro-life centers | Alliance Defending Freedom
Center for Reproductive Rights sues in North Dakota to block law prohibiting sex selection abortions
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court today against two unconstitutional North Dakota laws, one banning abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy—before some women even know they are pregnant—and another outlawing abortions for reasons of sex selection or genetic fetal anomaly. Today’s lawsuit, MKB Management, Inc. v. Burdick, filed in the U.S. District Court in Bismarck . . .
Center for Reproductive Rights: The Center filed today’s lawsuit, Hodes & Nauser MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt, in state court on behalf of Dr. Herbert Hodes and Dr. Traci Nauser, a father-daughter medical team that provides a full range of ob-gyn services in Overland Park, Kan.
Center for Reproductive Rights: Draw the Line launched in October 2012 with the goal of collecting signatures from men and women around the country for the Bill of Reproductive Rights as a way to demonstrate that the majority of Americans support safe access to healthcare for women.
NPR: “The tentacles of this type of approach to abortion are all over the country,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “He is not an outlier. You just have to do a Google search and you’ll find in the last several months many other examples” of rogue abortion providers, she said.
Center for Reproductive Rights Challenges North Dakota Law Aimed at Closing State’s Only Abortion Clinic
Center for Reproductive Rights: The Center for Reproductive Rights will soon file a lawsuit challenging both HB 1456 and HB 1305 on behalf the Red River Women’s Clinic before they are scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2013. The Center filed today’s proposed supplemental complaint, MKB Management Corp d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic, Tammi Kromenaker, Kathryn Eggleston, M.D., v. Birch Burdick and Terry Dwelle, M.D., along with law firm Turman & Lang Ltd.
THV (AP): Opponents of Arkansas’ law banning most abortions 12 weeks into a pregnancy say a group that wants to help defend the restriction shouldn’t participate in a hearing next week.
Liberty Counsel filed a motion and a brief in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking to intervene on behalf of a Concepts of Life crisis pregnancy center to defend against a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Grand Forks Herald: A judge said Thursday he will permanently block a 2011 North Dakota law that would have limited drug-induced abortions, a decision the director of the state’s lone abortion clinic hopes will “pave the way” for future challenges in a state where lawmakers have adopted four anti-abortion laws this session alone.
LifeNews: A judge has prevented a new pro-life law from being used to close the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi.
Wall Street Journal: States are becoming increasingly polarized over abortion, as some legislatures pass ever-tighter restrictions on the procedure while others consider stronger legal protections for it, advocates on both sides say.
AP: Rival legal teams, well-financed and highly motivated, are girding for court battles over the coming months on laws enacted in Arkansas and North Dakota that would impose the nation’s toughest bans on abortion.
David Crary at Bay News 9 (AP): “Anti-abortion groups divided over legal tactics”
LifeNews: The Republican House voted 56-33 on Wednesday to override after the state Senate voted yesterday to do the same thing. The bill arrived on Beebe’s desk after clearing the Senate, 26-8, and the House, 68-20.
Report from en banc Fourth Circuit oral argument in pregnancy center compelled speech cases | WalshLaw
WalshLaw: This morning’s lively en banc proceedings at the Fourth Circuit in abortion-counseling-related First Amendment challenges did not produce clear signs of a winner, but raised questions (at least in my mind) about what legal issues the court took the cases en banc to address. There was virtually no discussion of commercial speech doctrine, and no judge or set of judges developed a line of questioning that would seemingly lay the foundation to displace strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review. That said, oral argument reveals only so much. | Related ADF Media Information Page and Press Releases
LifeNews: “Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of abortion sellers,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, co-counsel for the Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center. Bowman added: “Pro-life centers provide women with the emotional support and practical resources they need, giving them more choices. They should be free to share that message instead of being compelled to provide the government’s preferred message, which sends women elsewhere. The 4th Circuit panel was right to rule against Montgomery County’s law, and we trust the full court will agree.”
An Alliance Defending Freedom attorney will be available for media interviews following oral arguments by co-counsel Thursday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a lawsuit involving a Montgomery County, Md. law that forces pro-life pregnancy counselors to advise women against using their services.
Kevin Kukla at LifeSiteNews: The Center for Reproductive Rights is attacking Costa Rica’s IVF laws as a means to push for greater access to abortion and contraception. CRR believes that legalizing IVF in Costa Rica will have, what they consider, positive repercussions for other “reproductive health” issues in the pro-life nations of Latin America. They call laws against IVF a “personhood movement in disguise, similar to efforts in the U.S. to define a fertilized egg as a person.”
European Court of Human Rights Finds Slovakia violated Romani women’s rights in another involuntary sterilization case
Center for Reproductive Rights: Today the European Court of Human Rights re-affirmed its recognition of involuntary sterilization of Romani women as a major human rights violation in its ruling in I.G. and Others v. Slovakia. In the significant decision, the court found that sterilization without prior full and informed consent violated the applicants’ right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment and their right to respect for private and family life. | Case of I.G and Others v. Slovakia
Center for Reproductive Rights: This week the Center for Reproductive Rights along with local Salvadoran organization Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto Ético, Terapéutico y Eugenésico filed a precautionary measure before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, asking for leniency and humane treatment of a mentally-ill woman incarcerated for undergoing a clandestine abortion.
Christian Post (includes video): A doctors group that supports an Arizona law restricting non-emergency abortions after 20 weeks has filed a legal brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals showing that babies feel pain during an abortion as early as 20 weeks. A district court found that unborn children have developed pain sensors all over their bodies by 20 weeks . Senior Council with Alliance Defending Freedom –Steven H. Aden– said infants feel “horrific pain and accused the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights don’t care about this.
Citizen Link: Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys filed a brief Wednesday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a doctors group that supports Arizona’s new law banning non-emergency abortions after the point at which preborn children can begin feeling pain. “This brief is intended to educate the court and the public about the reality that babies feel pain during an abortion as early as 20 weeks into a pregnancy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden.
One News Now: Senior counsel Steven H. Aden tells OneNewsNow, “Every innocent life deserves to be protected.” “Not only does this law protect babies in the womb who feel horrific pain upon being torn apart in an abortion, the law is constitutional because it protects mothers from risky abortions, and it protects society from the barbaric effects of abortions that cause horrific pain to babies,” he continues.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on behalf of a doctors group that supports an Arizona law restricting non-emergency abortions after 20 weeks.
The Hill: A slew of film and television stars are pushing back against GOP efforts to ban abortion and stop President Obama’s birth-control mandate.
The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Matt Bowman regarding Thursday’s decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to review a three-judge panel’s decision in Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County and Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
Bloomberg: The full U.S. Appeals Court in Richmond, Virginia, agreed to rehear a case involving a law that requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to post an advisory encouraging their clients to consult with medical professionals. The court set Dec. 6 for oral arguments in the rehearing, accepting a request by Montgomery County, Maryland, to review a split decision by a three-judge panel.
Steve Aden at Townhall: To protect mothers as well as their preborn children, Arizona lawmakers passed H.B. 1036—a bill banning elective abortions after 20 weeks. Although the legislation was aptly titled “The Mother’s Health and Safety Act,” the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights sued to block its implementation.
“Every innocent life deserves to be protected. Not only does this law protect children in the womb who experience horrific pain during a late-term abortion, it also protects mothers from the dangers and tremendous psychological consequences of late-term abortions. Though the 9th Circuit’s stay is regrettable, all it has done is give itself time to fully consider the case. Once it does, it should see the merits of the district court’s decision and uphold Arizona’s law.”
AZ Central: A federal appeals court is temporarily prohibiting Arizona from enforcing its new ban on abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued its order Wednesday, two days after a trial judge ruled that the ban could take effect as scheduled Thursday.
Steve Aden on the Schilling Show: Federal Court refuses to halt AZ law protecting babies after 20 weeks
LifeNews: Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven Aden talked with LifeNews about the ruling: “Every innocent life deserves to be protected. That certainly includes the most vulnerable of all: children in the womb who experience horrific pain when being torn apart in the womb during a late-term abortion like those this law prohibits. This law also protects mothers from dangerous late-term abortions and their tremendous psychological consequences. The ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed this lawsuit, apparently don’t care about any of that, preferring to pursue their own agenda. The court was right to thwart their attempts to stop this law.