The Supreme Court’s decision last week to delay the enforcement of a Texas law designed to protect women from the abuses of a dangerous, profit-driven, and under-scrutinized abortion industry may signal that the Court is ready to hear and decide its first abortion case since 2007. In fact, in the coming months, there will be number of abortion cases competing for the Court’s attention.
The Obama Administration has again failed to honor promises made to pro-life Democrats that were necessary to ensure the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report last week revealing that the Administration has done virtually nothing to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to pay for abortions through insurance plans in the new state Exchanges.
Of the 144 different measures so far on election ballots this November across the country, one of the most important is Tennessee’s Amendment 1. If passed, it will eliminate one of the most egregious state supreme court decisions in U.S. history and open the door to commonsense health and safety standards that will protect the lives of women and unborn children.
Striking down a state law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges in local hospitals, a Fifth Circuit panel ignored Supreme Court precedent and instead requires that Mississippi ensure abortions—regardless of safety—are provided within its borders. The court acknowledged the fact that admitting privileges protect women from the sometimes deadly consequences of abortion but ultimately that did not matter to the court. Abortionists, not women, benefit from the dangerous opinion.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) this week. While this treaty has a warm and fuzzy name, it could have a dangerous impact on abortion laws in this country.
The Senate Democrats, led by Patty Murray, have called for an immediate vote on S. 2578, disingenuously titled the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act. It should be known for what it is, the Anti-Religious Freedom bill.
For decades, pro-abortion advocacy groups have tried to soften the public perception of their agenda behind a feel-good phrase “pro-choice.” But as the cases decided this past week by the U.S. Supreme Court show, “coercion” more aptly describes their goals. The Massachusetts law unanimously struck down in McCullen v. Coakley criminalized the offer of alternatives to abortion on public sidewalks. And the mandate at the center of the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases was about government control, not about healthcare.
Few Americans are aware that a “Gosnell Prerogative Act” has been introduced in Congress. This bill would permit the grisliest abortion providers—like the now-convicted murderer, Kermit Gosnell—to set the standard of care for abortion.
Only time will tell, but the freedom of speech of pro-life Americans may be restored in the very near future, perhaps as early as Monday, when the Supreme Court issues its next round of opinions.