Our Issue
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a new Nebraska law requiring mental health screening for women seeking abortion.The new law would require women wanting abortions to be screened by doctors or other health professionals to determine whether they were pressured into having the procedure. Those women also would have to be screened for risk factors indicating they could have mental or physical problems after an abortion.
Planned Parenthood, which runs one of two abortion clinics in Nebraska, has been critical of the measure, saying it could be difficult to comply with and could give women irrelevant information.
“The act would ban abortions in Nebraska by imposing, as a condition to performing lawful abortions, impossible, unintelligible, and unprecedented so-called ‘informed consent’ requirements on abortion providers that vastly stray from accepted and, indeed, good medical practice,” Planned Parenthood said in its lawsuit.
Supporters of the screening law say it could help prevent medical problems after the abortion is performed and would put the pre-abortion reviews in line with those used in other medical procedures. Doctors would have to tell patients if they had any risk factors indicating they could have mental or physical problems after an abortion, but could still perform it in those cases.
The new law says if a screening was not done or was performed inadequately, a woman who had mental or physical problems afterward could file a civil suit. Doctors would neither face criminal charges nor lose their medical licenses.
The screening law is set to go into effect on July 15. It is one of two controversial abortion laws passed by state lawmakers last spring and signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman.
The other new law would ban abortions starting at 20 weeks, and that is set to go into effect in mid-October. That ban is based on assertions from some doctors that fetuses feel pain by that stage of development. It, too, had initially drawn threats of a legal challenge, but attorneys on both sides of the debate have recently theorized that the law might be allowed to stand over fears that a losing challenge to it would change the legal landscape for abortion.
If opponents challenge the law and lose, the court could redefine the measure for abortion restrictions, throwing out viability — when the fetus could survive outside the womb — in favor of the point when a fetus can feel pain. If future medical advances were to show a fetus can feel pain at an earlier stage, abortions could be restricted earlier.
“Anybody who wants to challenge the laws is going to have to assess whether the strategic risks of bringing a lawsuit outweigh the likelihood of a victory,” said Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor at The City University of New York.
A challenge “could be seen by some people as too risky,” said Borgmann, who testified against the ban during a legislative hearing in February.
New Docs: Kagan on Assisted Suicide Law http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/04/new-docs-kagan-on-assisted-suicide-law/
Americans’ lives are shaped and changed by the law, but a Supreme Court Justice’s role is not to impact people’s lives by shaping or changing the law according to her own beliefs. Rather, a Justice should apply the law as it is written to each case that arises before the Court.
In the past 40 years, certain Supreme Court Justices, in the name of a right to abortion, have imposed their pro-abortion views on the American people, denying Americans their right to decide this important issue through the legislative process.
President Obama has repeatedly stated a requirement for his Supreme Court pick would be someone who could interpret the Constitution as protecting abortion rights. Will Solicitor Elena Kagan objectively apply the Constitution or promote a pro-abortion agenda?
It seems unlikely. Here’s why.
Kagan has contributed financially to the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF), an organization whose goal, in its own words, is “to increase women’s access to…reproductive health services and block attempts to limit reproductive rights…and to give every woman access to…abortion services….”[1] Kagan “listed membership in” NPWF in a questionnaire she submitted in connection with her judicial nomination in 1999.[2]
Judith Lichtman, Senior Advisor for the NPWF, who believes “[e]fforts to limit coverage of abortion services are really attempts to deny women access to health care services,”[3] wrote a letter “wholeheartedly” supporting Kagan’s Solicitor General nomination, whom she describes as a “friend and colleague.”[4]
The NPWF also shares strong ties to Emily’s List, an organization that works to elect pro-abortion Democratic women to Congress, and NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL), an organization that advocates for increased access to abortion. NPWF’s president, Debra Ness, serves on the Board of Directors of Emily’s List. Prior to her position at NPWF, Ness was a high-ranking official with NARAL, where she worked to revitalize NARAL’s grassroots political capability and to make it a force in American electoral politics.
After President Obama announced Kagan as his Supreme Court pick, Ness stated that Americans lost a “powerful champion for justice” with the retirement of Justice Stevens (who was an ardent pro-abortion activist while on the court), but that Kagan “offers the promise that the nation will continue to benefit from having that kind of champion on its highest court.”[5]
The Chair of NPWF’s Board of Directors, Ellen Malcolm, not only served as the former president of Emily’s List, but was the founder of Emily’s List. In addition to chairing the NPWF, Malcolm currently chairs the Board of Directors at Emily’s List. Emily’s List current president, Stephanie Schriock, “commended” Obama’s nomination of Kagan, saying that Obama had selected a “strong and independent” woman.[6]
The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), a self-proclaimed “early supporter of abortion rights,”[7] and an advocate for abortion rights both nationally and internationally, stated that it felt “comfortable about [Kagan’s] commitment to reproductive rights, to Roe v. Wade, and to stare decisis,” and were “confident about President Obama’s commitment to find a justice that would protect those rights.”[8] NCJW believes “the most basic requirement for a lifetime seat on the federal bench is a proven commitment to constitutional rights, including reproductive rights.”[9]
Conclusion:
The role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to usurp the role of legislatures and force upon the American people the Justice’s views on social justice and reproductive rights. When a Justice begins to rule based on her own beliefs or those of a particular group, she fails in her duty to uphold the fundamental Constitutional principle of equal justice for all.
If Kagan is confirmed, the American people will continue to have a pro-abortion ideology imposed upon them by a life-time-appointed Justice.
Tennessee Becomes Second State to Stop Abortion Funding in Health Care
Tennessee became the second state today to stop at least some of the abortion funding in the national health care bill President Barack Obama signed. Arizona was the first state to have its bill signed into law and now, Governor Phil Bredesen let the Tennessee bill become law without his signature.
Without comment, Bredesen refused to sign legislation barring abortion as a funded benefit in new federally mandated health care exchanges. Since he did not issue a veto, the protective policy takes effect immediately.
Tennessee law allows the governor to sign a bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.
Sponsored by pro-life Rep. Matthew Hill and pro-life Sen. Diane Black, the new law says: “No health care plan required to be established in this state through an exchange pursuant to federal health care reform legislation enacted by the 111th Congress shall offer coverage for abortion services.”
HB 2681 / SB 2686 passed the state House 70-23 and the state Senate 27-3.
Tennessee’s General Assembly was the nation’s first to pass legislation making clear that abortion would not be included as a benefit in federally required health care exchanges. Arizona, Mississippi and Florida have since followed suit and bills at governors’ desks in the latter two states while several other states are working on legislation.
Tennessee Right to Life has praised legislators for their work this session to protect human life, particularly leadership of both the state House and state Senate.
“Pro-life citizens around the state are grateful to our new House Speaker, Kent Williams, for making the protection of life a priority, just as he said he would,” president of the pro-life group, told LifeNews.com today. “And without the principled counsel and leadership of Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, this session’s victories for life would never have been realized.”
Under the new health care law, states will be in charge of their own health care exchanges that are available for individuals and small businesses. HB 2681 will keep any insurance plans on the Tennessee exchange from offering abortion coverage.
The exchange doesn’t go into effect until 2014 and states are filing lawsuits seeking to stop the pro-abortion health care bill in its other pro-abortion provisions entirety, but states are moving now to exercise their right to opt out of some of the abortion funding.
Passage of the ‘abortion opt out’ bill follows easy passage this session of bills removing priority status from the Tennessee Planned Parenthood abortion business — redirecting family planning funds to local health departments which do not perform abortions.
Other bills required posting of the state’s non-coercion policy in private offices and facilities which perform abortions, and the legislature saw the first passage of SJR 127, a resolution requiring a public vote in 2014 to make the Tennessee Constitution neutral once again on the matter of abortion.
Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen surprised pro-life advocates today and, despite his pro-abortion stance, signed a bill that helps stop forced abortions. The Freedom from Coercion Act will require abortion facilities to prominently post non-coercion policies and impose penalties against facilities which do not comply.
The state House and Senate worked out the differences in two different versions of the bill, which requires the posting of signs.
The signs appearing at abortion centers would read: “It is against the law for anyone, regardless of the person’s relationship to you, to coerce you into having or to force you to have an abortion.”
Rep. Susan Lynn and Sen. Jack Johnson sponsored the companion measures which passed overwhelmingly by both the state House (87-8) and state Senate (29-2.)
The Act requires abortion providers throughout the state to post Tennessee’s non-coercion policy and provides for fines against those medical facilities which do not comply. Among those required to post the signs are abortion facilities, hospitals, and offices of private physicians who perform abortions.
Tennessee Right to Life applauded legislators for moving the bill forward and said their work “has resulted in enormous gains for Tennessee’s pro-life movement this legislative session.”
“Despite the challenges of Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist, Tennessee’s pro-life leadership is working creatively to represent the state’s pro-life majority and to restore as much protection as the state Supreme Court’s terrible 2000 decision currently allows,” Brian Harris, the organization’s president, told LifeNews.com today.
“This session’s victories demonstrate the importance of pro-life leadership and the necessity for pro-life voters to make sacrificial efforts this fall to continue electing candidates with a demonstrated commitment to the protection of human life,” Harris said.
With studies showing as many as 60 percent of women who have had abortions saying they felt pressure from a husband or boyfriend, friends or family, or an employer to have an abortion, the signs could reaffirm a woman’s decision to not have one despite the pressure.
Abortion centers that don’t comply with the law would face a $2,500 fine for not posting the required signs.
“Tennessee is making strides toward protecting women and girls who are pressured into abortions they do not want,” said Karen Brukardt, legislative lobbyist for Tennessee Right to Life.
She told LifeNews.com, “With this vote Tennessee’s legislators have shown their sensitivity and support for some of our state’s most vulnerable individuals, especially women at risk of abuse and violence if they don’t submit to unwanted abortions.”
Linda Norfleet of Hermitage was one of more than 100 pro-life people in the legislature for the vote and she told the Tennessean newspaper this bill is good for women.
“The measure … represents a huge step forward on behalf of the safety of young women and their personal decisions, as well as safety for the life of their unborn child,” she said.
Attorneys with Americans United for Life are urging the Obama administration not to expand embryonic stem cell research beyond the ways in which it has already promoted the life-taking and ineffective research.
Last month, the National Institutes of Health announced it was proposing a “technical change” in their guidelines for destruction of human embryos.
The change would allow use of younger human embryos in experiments.
Although the NIH ignored the majority of comments from the public opposing its implementation of the executive order President Barack Obama issued forcing taxpayers to fund the destruction of human life to obtain embryonic stem cells, AUL hopes NIH will listen this time around.
In its comment, AUL demonstrates that embryonic stem cell research violates applicable law and is unnecessary in light of advances in adult stem cell research.
“The NIH has proposed an improper new definition of ‘human embryonic stem cell’ that will allow even more funding for the destruction of human embryos,” said William L. Saunders, a senior AUL attorney.
“But this change would violate current law that forbids public funding for any research that places an embryo at risk of injury. It is also not necessary, given the incredible advances we have already seen in treatments using ethical forms of stem cell research, such as adult stem cell research,” Saunders adds. Full story at LifeNews.com