FEBRUARY 4, 2010

AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE DEFENDS ARIZONA’S INFORMED CONSENT LAW
AUL Files Brief in 9th Circuit Affirming State’s Interest in Protecting Women

WASHINGTON, DC – Attorneys with Americans United for Life filed a brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Arizona’s 2009 informed consent law is a constitutionally-appropriate expression of the state’s legitimate interest in safeguarding the health of women considering abortions.

“Abortion providers in Arizona are making it clear that they aren’t protecting women’s health,” noted AUL’s lead attorney Mailee Smith, “rather their priority is getting paid.”

In 2009, Arizona enacted a law mandating that a woman considering abortion must receive information about its risks and also about the alternatives. The law also requires a 24-hour reflection period before the woman may actually undergo an abortion, and it prohibits abortion providers from collecting payment prior to the expiration of the reflection period.

In September 2009, Arizona abortion providers filed legal challenges to the law in both federal and state courts, requesting that it be enjoined and declared unconstitutional. A federal district court later refused to enjoin the law and abortion providers have elected to appeal the enforcement of the payment restrictions to the 9th Circuit.

State Representative Nancy Barto, AUL’s client and a principal sponsor of the legislation, remarked during a February 2009 hearing on the measure, that the State of Arizona has demonstrated a commitment to “protecting Arizonans’ right to make informed decisions about their medical care.”

Amicus Brief: http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/AUL-Tucson-v.-AZ-Amicus-Brief.pdf

http://aul.org/Amicus_Briefs
SOURCE: AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE: The first national pro-life organization in America

Media Contact
press@aul.org

202-556-1994

###

On Tuesday we reported that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) would be considering whether to once again delay implementation of the Illinois parental notification law.  For a short while on Wednesday, pro-lifers felt victorious: rather than further delay enforcement, as we expected, the IDFPR allowed the law to go into effect.

Unfortunately, the ACLU was able to convince a state court later Wednesday afternoon that the parental notification law is unconstitutional under the state constitution—despite the fact that abortion itself was still illegal in Illinois at the time the constitution was put into place.

So once again, minors in Illinois are left unprotected from the harms of abortion, and parents are left helpless and without knowledge when abortionists perform procedures on their daughters that carry substantial short-term and long-term physical and psychological risks.

But the ACLU’s claims, and the state court’s acceptance of their false claims to date, will be potentially disastrous to all women in Illinois—not just minors.  What the ACLU is arguing is that any commonsense regulation of abortion is unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution.

Pro-abortion forces were unsuccessful this year in passing a state Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in Illinois.  Had FOCA passed, it would have enshrined abortion on demand into Illinois law, making it nearly impossible to protect women through informed consent laws, parental notification laws, or abortion clinic regulations.

So the ACLU has apparently shifted its strategy.  Rather than working through the legislature—where such decisions belong—the ACLU is using the court system in Illinois to block a law that the majority of Americans and Illinoisans desire.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a Pittsburg ordinance restricting access to public areas around abortion clinics unconstitutional.  More specifically, the court held the ordinance to be “insufficiently tailored” because it “burdens substantially more speech than necessary” to achieve the City’s stated interest—to prevent “harassment and obstruction of entrances” to hospitals and medical clinics. 

The Pittsburg ordinance combined a “bubble zone” and a “buffer zone.”  The bubble zone extended 100 feet from the entrance of any hospital, medical office or clinic—including public sidewalks—and prohibited anyone from approaching another person within 8 feet without consent to pass a leaflet or handbill, display a sign or engage in oral protest.  The buffer zone essentially cordoned off a 15-foot zone from the entrance of a hospital or health care facility prohibiting anyone to congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. 

The Court of Appeals found the zones to be constitutional when considered independent of each other, but when the ordinance combined both zones it overburdened protected speech.  It remanded the case for the City to decide which zone it preferred and directed the District Court to enjoin enforcement of the other zone. 

In making its ruling, the Third Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision involving a similar Colorado Statute, as well as, the First Circuit’s decisions involving bubble zone ordinances around Reproductive Health Care Facilities in Massachusetts.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a similar 100-ft bubble zone in Colorado finding the statute a permissible content-neutral time, place and manner regulation—making it significantly easier for governments to simply forbid free speech in select public areas.  In doing so, the Court failed to call a spade a spade—or in this case a content-based regulation content-based.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have lobbied local and state governments to pass these “bubble zone” ordinances under the governments’ public safety interest.  Asserting an interest in safe access to “healthcare” (meaning safe access to abortions), these ordinances attempt to restrict the presence of pro-life advocates and all communicative efforts by them around abortion clinics.

These ordinances criminalize any discussion of abortion outside abortion clinics.  They prohibit peaceful demonstrations and they eliminate any effective means to discuss the harms of abortion at the location these harms occur.  In application, they prevent effective sidewalk counseling and significantly hinder the communication of abortion alternatives to women who need and want the information the most.  These laws permit only one viewpoint to reach women entering abortion clinics—the pro-abortion position and those enacting them know it.

Abortion advocates simply cannot win on the merits of their arguments, so they employ tactics to prohibit or restrict the expression of views opposing abortion.  And unfortunately, they are finding some success in pursuing these  “bubble zone” ordinances across the country and in the courts. 

The courts have refused to see these ordinances for what they are—an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints and prohibit the expression of dissent to abortion. Until the courts are willing to recognize the content and viewpoint discrimination occurring through bubble zone ordinances, abortion advocates will continue to employ this new weapon of choice to unconstitutionally silence opposition to abortion.  

Once again the law surrounding abortion seems to require special exceptions to protect the abortion industry from thoughtful and full debate of the harms it causes to women and their unborn children.

Washington, DC — This week a federal district court in South Dakota affirmed that a woman has a right to know that an abortion “terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, stated, “This is a victory for women and their right to complete and accurate medical information when considering abortion.  Fully informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical care and this principle is especially applicable to abortion.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, an uninformed decision about abortion can lead to devastating consequences.”

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “That Planned Parenthood even challenged this law speaks volumes about their radical and self-serving agenda.  Clearly, they do not want women to have all the information about abortion because they know that the more women know about abortion, the more they choose life.”

The case, Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, involves a challenge to a 2005 South Dakota law that supplemented the state’s long-standing informed consent law.  The court struck down requirements that a woman be informed that abortion increases the likelihood of suicide and that she has an “existing relationship” with the unborn child.  Parties to the suit have indicated that they will appeal.

Media Contact
Heather Smith
202-270-9962
heather.smith@aul.org
##

North Dakota Governor John Hoeven has signed life-saving House Bills 1371 and 1445 into law, both relating to the only abortion center in the state. HB 1371 gives women the chance to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion. HB 1445 mandates informed consent, requiring abortion centers to explain to women considering an abortion that it will destroy the life of an unborn child, a unique human being.

North Dakotans, you can thank Governor Hoeven for signing these life-saving House Bills by going to AUL Action.

A so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) in Illinois (IL House Bill 2354) is scheduled for a hearing at the State House at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, March 4.

Like the federal FOCA introduced in the 110th Congress, and state versions that have recently been introduced in other states such as New Mexico, the Illinois FOCA would authorize a nurse, in any public school in the state, to do an abortion on a minor girl, at any time of pregnancy, without any parental knowledge.  The bill then specifically immunizes such a nurse from any civil or criminal claim by any parent in Section 25(a).

The Illinois FOCA would repeal Illinois physician-only law and all other Illinois limits on abortion by virtue of declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right” and by prohibiting (in Section 15) any “interference” with the fundamental right and by prohibiting “discrimination” in funding in Section 20.

The FOCA would also eliminate the Illinois prohibition on partial-birth abortion and repeal other existing abortion regulations.

The declaration of abortion as a “fundamental right” would extend from conception to birth and thereby strike down any regulations of abortion throughout pregnancy.

Section 35 of the Illinois FOCA also tramples on conscience rights.

It would also require public funding of abortion from conception to birth by requiring that abortion be treated equally with childbirth.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

 
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.

Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

On January 6, Senator Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act (S. 21) (“the Act”), which disingenuously claims to be aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.  What it in reality does is provide continued (and elevated) funding to family planning programs that provide and counsel in favor of abortion, mandates health coverage of contraception, miseducates the public on emergency contraception, and forces religiously-based hospitals to provide emergency contraception.  It also contains a number of inaccuracies.

First, the Act provides elevated funding for family planning services and “teen pregnancy prevention programs” that counsel in favor of abortion.  The Act does not exclude abortion providers or other entities that counsel in favor of abortion from receiving funds.  Thus, entities like Planned Parenthood (which gains incredible profits every year from the provision of abortions) will be eligible for these increased funds.  And not only can such entities receive the funds, but there is nothing in the text of the Act itself that prohibits the use of the funds for the referral or counseling in favor of abortion.  This failure to exclude abortion providers demonstrates that the Act is not truly aimed at reducing abortion.

Thus, this Act diverges from the views of the majority of Americans who want to see abortions decrease.  It is an irresponsible use of federal money in this economic crisis.

Second, the Act mandates health coverage of contraception.  Group health plans and health insurers that provide coverage in connection with a group health plan may not exclude prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, or outpatient contraceptive services if the plan covers other drugs and services.  Similarly, such plans must cover experimental contraception if other types of experimental drugs are covered.  The Act would preempt any state laws that limit the coverage of contraception.

What is most troubling about this section is its failure to exclude religiously-affiliated entities or institutions from this contraceptive mandate.  Thus, if a church provides a group health plan for its employees, that health plan must cover contraception if it covers other drugs.  There is no room for conscientious objection, and churches will be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs or refraining from offering heath coverage at all.  Again, for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis, this kind of federal ultimatum is either irresponsible, at best, or demonstrates a maliciousness toward religiously-affiliated entities, at worst.

Third, the Act advocates the use of emergency contraception (“EC”), ignoring the risks involved in using EC as well as blatantly misrepresenting how EC works.  For example, in a section delineating Congressional findings, the Act states that EC is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and that research confirms that easier access to EC does not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).  However, EC is inherently unsafe in that its current over-the-counter access makes EC available to a larger population of women than any trial has tested upon.  Moreover, if the hormones in regular birth control pills render such drugs unsafe for non-prescription status, the higher amounts found in EC cannot be safe, either.  In addition, EC is only 75-89 percent effective—in other words, it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases.

The claim regarding sexual risk-taking and the transmission of STDs is also untrue.  As we report in Defending Life:

Studies reveal that emergency contraception does not reduce pregnancy and abortion rates.  In one study, abortion rates increased by nearly 6,000 in a one-year period, jumping 3.2 percent.  Once EC became available without prescription in the United Kingdom, use among teenage girls doubled from 1 in 12 to 1 in 5.  In fact, one study reported that 4 out of 12 women were influenced to have unprotected sex because of the easy access to EC.  With the increased rate of sexual activity and the substantial failure rate of EC, the over-the-counter availability of Plan B cannot be expected to reduce the number of pregnancies or abortions.  Furthermore, in those areas with easy access to EC, the number of sexually transmitted diseases has skyrocketed.

See The Deadly Convenience of RU-486 and Plan B, available at http://www.aul.org/Deadly_Convenience (including references to the sources cited). 

The Act also completely misleads as to the way in which EC works, stating that EC “prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.”  What the Act purposely avoids stating is that it is not an egg that is prevented from implanting—it is a fertilized egg.  In other words, conception has occurred, and a new human being has been formed.  Scientifically speaking, it cannot be disputed that a new human organism, with its own genetic information, has been formed.  Even the drug manufacturer’s label states that a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting.

Moreover, the Act provides for the dissemination of information to the public and healthcare providers that EC is safe and effective—and it does not require the dissemination of information on the risks of EC.  As already demonstrated above, this information is misleading and puts women’s health and lives at risk.  Ironically, another section of the Act requires that any information about contraception be “medically accurate.”  But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the Act’s own discussion of EC. 

The Act also requires the information to include “a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases”—placing the federal government in a position where it is actually advocating the use of EC.

Finally, the Act states that no federal funds will be provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides oral and written information about EC, offers EC, and provides EC to sexual assault victims.  There is no exemption within the Act itself for religiously-affiliated hospitals that conscientiously object to the provision of EC.  Thus, this provision also further exacerbates the ongoing healthcare crisis by forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to choose between violating their moral beliefs or accepting federal funding.

If a hospital chooses to accept federal funding, it must inform women that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.”   But this runs contrary to the ongoing debate within the medical community, and also ignores the fact that the drug manufacturer itself confirms that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., after conception has occurred).  It also runs contrary to the religious and ethical beliefs of numerous individuals and healthcare providers that life begins at conception—and thus that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is in fact an abortion.  It may represent the misinformed ideology of Senator Reid and his co-sponsors—such as Senator Boxer—but it certainly does not represent the beliefs of a vast number of women and healthcare providers across the nation.  Women and healthcare providers who will be purposely misled by the government if the Act is passed.

And again, the information provided to women must explain that EC is effective in most cases—ignoring the fact that it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases, and failing to inform women of the risks of EC.

Conclusion

What is clear from the face of this Act is that it is not at all about the reduction of abortion, but the funding of abortion providers and the purposeful miseducation of the American public.  It is bad for women—and well as for the healthcare industry and the economy.

Chicago, Illinois — In response to the U.S. Supreme Court announcement that it will not grant further review to life-related cases from Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey, Americans United for Life (AUL) made the following statements.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton requires that Choose Life license plates be offered in Arizona.

Denise Burke, AUL’s Vice President & Legal Director said: “This is huge victory for ‘Choose Life’ license plates. By denying review, the Court has affirmed that Arizona and other states cannot deny Choose Life license plates simply because of their pro-life message.”

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of pregnancy care centers arguing that the Arizona Life Coalition was discriminated against when the state failed to grant its petition for a “Choose Life” license plate. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and the State of Arizona subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ArizonaLifeCoalitionvStanton.pdf

As cases involving “Choose Life” license plates are still pending in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, AUL’s Staff Counsel Mailee Smith remarked, “We are hopeful that the Court’s denial of review will signal to those courts that states cannot discriminate against ‘Choose Life’ license plates.”

In addition, the Court denied review in Roe v. Crawford, a Missouri case where a female prison inmate has successfully argued that she has a right to be transported at state expense for an elective abortion. At issue was a Department of Corrections policy prohibiting such transport.

“By denying review, the Supreme Court is allowing a prisoner to unilaterally demand that she be transported for a controversial elective procedure where the associated costs will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers,” stated AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke. “The Court is also ignoring the state’s interest in protecting women from the negative consequences of abortion—especially those women who are in custody and under the care of the state.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Missouri legislators arguing in favor of the prison policy. The Eighth Circuit sided in part with AUL, agreeing that the denial of elective abortions does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, and even stating that elective abortions do not constitute medical need. However, the court ultimately agreed with the inmate that her Fourteenth Amendment “right” to abortion means that the state must transport her for abortion.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Eighth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoevCrawford.pdf

Finally, the Court also denied review in Acuna v. Turkish, a New Jersey case where an abortionist failed to adequately counsel and answer a woman’s questions before her abortion.

“This case underscores the dire need for comprehensive informed consent laws. Had the abortionist in this case been held to this type of legal requirement, Ms. Acuna would have received the information she needed in making the abortion decision,” stated AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith.

To date, New Jersey, 17 other states, and the District of Columbia do not require that women receive any information pertinent to making the abortion decision.

This is the fifth of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Placenta Previa

Thorp, Hartmann & Shadigian, Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence, 58 Obst. & Gyn. Survey 67 (2003)

Abstract:
Induced abortion is a prevalent response to an unintended pregnancy. The long-term health consequences are poorly investigated and conclusions must be drawn from observational studies. Using strict inclusion criteria (study population >100 subjects, follow up >60 days) we reviewed an array of conditions in women’s health. Induced abortion was not associated with changes in the prevalence of subsequent subfertility, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy.

Previous abortion was a risk factor for placenta previa. Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm. Preterm delivery and depression are important conditions in women’s health and avoidance of induced abortion has potential as a strategy to reduce their prevalence.

Only review articles including the single published meta-analysis exploring linkages between abortion and breast cancer were relied upon to draw conclusions. Reviewers were mixed on whether subsequent breast neoplasia can be linked to induced abortion, although the sole meta-analysis found a summary odds ratio of 1.2. Whatever the effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk, a young woman with an unintended pregnancy clearly sacrifices the protective effect of a term delivery should she decide to abort and delay childbearing. That increase in risk can be quantified using the Gail Model.

Thus, we conclude that informed consent before induced abortion should include information about the subsequent risk of preterm delivery and depression. Although it remains uncertain whether elective abortion increases subsequent breast cancer, it is clear that a decision to abort and delay pregnancy culminates in a loss of protection with the net effect being an increased risk.

The Situation

On Thursday, July 10, 2008, Congressman Trent Franks and Congresswoman Iliana Ros-Leightenen held a public forum discussing the Federal Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), HR 1063. CIANA would prohibit the illegal transportation of minor girls across state lines — unbeknownst to parents — in order to circumvent abortion parental notification laws in a girl’s home state. 

This bipartisan legislation received overwhelming support in Congress. CIANA passed the House of Representatives by large margins in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006. In January 2007, CIANA passed the House by a vote of 270 to 157. Currently, CIANA has the bi-partisan support of 130 Members of Congress, and may likely pass the House again.

CIANA is also strongly supported by the American public. For example, in a CBS News poll, 80% of respondents favored a requirement that one parent receive notification of their minor daughter’s abortion. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showed that 78% of participants favored parental notification for minor abortions; 64% of those favoring parental involvement identified themselves as “pro-choice.”

Despite overwhelming support by both Congress and the American public for legislative action, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (of which Rep. Franks is a Ranking Member) has refused to respond to multiple requests to hold a hearing on CIANA. Rep. Franks requested such a hearing this past April, and then again in May. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee refused to even send Rep. Franks a reply to his letters. So, Rep. Franks took the initiative to hold a public forum on July 10, 2008 in order to discuss CIANA.

CIANA Protects Minors and Parents, and Fosters Respect for State Laws

Parental consent is required for a minor girl to go on a school field trip, participate in contact sports, get a tattoo, or participate in a sex education program. In Maryland, eleven school systems require a parent’s note before sunscreen can be applied to a minor student. If parental notification and consent is required for these, how much more then, is parental notification and consent needed for an abortion on a child?

The majority of the states have recognized that abortion is a serious and invasive medical procedure, and have enacted some form of parental involvement law that requires at least one parent to be given notice or give consent before their minor daughter receives an abortion. Without parental notification and/or parental consent, a parent will be denied the opportunity to give the abortion provider vital information on the child’s medical history and pertinent family medical history. The parent(s) will also be unable to ensure that the child receives routine post-abortion care and obtains follow-up treatment and examinations. Parents would not have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to any post-abortion complications that may develop (including complication that can be lethal if left untreated).

One of the purposes of CIANA is to protect girls from sexual predators. Teenage pregnancies often occur as a result of predatory practices of substantially older men. These sexual predators seek to destroy the evidence of their criminal conduct – that is, the pregnancy – by taking girls they have impregnated across state lines for secret abortions that the girls’ parents will never know about. Many men have avoided criminal liability by transporting girls across state lines in order to circumvent the protective laws of the girls’ home state. Not only does the secret, out-of-state abortion eliminate critical evidence of the criminal conduct, it allows the abuse to continue undetected. CIANA seeks to protect victims of statutory rape, abuse and incest from being coerced into abortions and from becoming victims a second time.

As the illegal transportation of girls across state lines to circumvent state laws is an inter-state issue (as opposed to an intra-state issue), only a federal law such as CIANA could ensure that parents have the opportunity to protect their daughters from sexual predators who would victimize them further. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that the transportation of persons across state lines is a form of inter-state commerce, and can be legitimately regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause.

CIANA reinforces existing state laws by cutting off a major way in which sexual predators have thwarted sexual crime laws and parental notification/consent laws. It also cuts off a major way in which abortion clinics have thwarted state sexual abuse reporting laws. In doing so, CIANA directly fosters a general respect for existing state laws.

CIANA is Constitutional

Roe v. Wade established a right to abortion prior to viability, and after viability for maternal life and health. It did NOT legalize the right for persons other than a parent or guardian to decide what is best for a child. It did NOT legalize a right for sexual predators to cover up their crimes. It did NOT legalize a right for strangers to place children in potentially fatal situations.

CIANA does not impose an obstacle on a minor entering or leaving any state. Nor does it prohibit anyone from accompanying minors to obtain abortions. Rather, it merely requires those assisting minors to obtain an abortion to comply with the laws of the girls’ home state. Nothing more, nothing less. CIANA is a constitutional piece of bi-partisan legislation that would be unquestionably upheld by any court.

Conclusion

During the public forum on CIANA, pro-life activist Missy Smith stated:

 “I have seen many young girls…being pushed, pulled, screamed at, threatened  and bullied into abortion facilities…and I am there when they come out broken  and in tears…. Our young people deserve protection under the law.”

It is sad that such a protective, life-affirming legislation that has overwhelming bi-partisan support has been denied even a hearing. It is high time that legislators working on the federal level wake up and give CIANA proper attention. Children and parents deserve nothing less.

Judging from comments made by pro-choice activists, Michelle Goldberg (author of Kingdom Coming) and Rebecca Traister (of Salon.com), technological advancements are having an impact on the rhetoric used in the abortion debate. In their discussion of the “internal contradiction” between third term abortions and ultrasound images, the women recognized the need to evolve from using language like “blob” or “growth” when describing the fetus in order to “keep any kind of emotional and moral ground.” The latest ultrasound imagery provides stunning, undeniable proof that the unborn child is a unique person. An excellent 4D ultrasound video presented by the American Life League is available online at YouTube.

This past year, 11 states considered ultrasound legislation including Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ultrasound legislation requires a woman considering an abortion be given an opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child. This legislation works to ensure that a woman is fully informed of the reality of abortion.

A recent and growing movement seeks to challenge the idea that life can only be acknowledged at the moment of live birth. The “Missing Angels” Bill, enacted in 23 states, allows parents of stillborn children the option of receiving a birth certificate (“certificate of stillbirth”) rather than merely a death certificate as recognition of their child’s existence to help with the healing process. More than 25,000 pregnancies a year end in stillbirth, generally defined as a naturally occurring, unintentional intrauterine death after more than 20 weeks of gestation. While the legislation is carefully constructed to exclude “elected terminations,” it acknowledges that a child in the womb after a certain point of development is worthy of recognition as a person even if he or she doesn’t survive birth.

While Goldberg emphasized that there is a “huge difference” between an 8 week “clump of cells” and an 8 month baby . . . I mean fetus, she failed to explain what justifies that difference and where the line should be drawn. If the line of when life begins is dependent on what technology allows us to see or whether a mother values her unborn child, then the line is merely arbitrary. The law should define and protect life according to the truth, that life begins at the moment at which a new human person is created and that all life has intrinsic value.

For more information on ultrasound legislation, see Defending Life 2008 at AUL.org.

In a decision issued last week by the Eighth Circuit (sitting en banc), the Court reversed a preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of certain provisions of South Dakota’s informed consent law.

The provisions require that a woman be informed that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” and that the woman has an existing, Constitutional relationship with her unborn child.  Planned Parenthood had challenged the law, and initially obtained the now-overturned preliminary injunction from the lower court. 

The effect of this ruling remains to be seen.  Because the decision involved only a preliminary injunction, the actual merits of the case—and the constitutionality of the informed consent provisions—have not been decided.  However, a few positive developments must be noted.

First, the Court concluded that, in a preliminary injunction proceeding involving government action, plaintiffs such as Planned Parenthood must meet a higher standard.  It is not enough that Planned Parenthood show that it might succeed on the merits of the case; it must show that it is likely to succeed.  This heightens the standard that district courts in the Eighth Circuit will use when considering preliminarily enjoining abortion related laws.

Second, this Court more accurately balanced expert witness testimony than it has in the past.  For example, in Carhart v. Gonzales, one of the partial-birth abortion cases, the lower court and Eighth Circuit took abortionist testimony as fact, completely dismissing the accuracy and strength of the government’s expert witnesses.

Here, however, the Court emphasized that Planned Parenthood did not have enough medical and scientific evidence that the informed consent provisions were unnecessary or inaccurate.  The Court did not take as fact a plaintiff abortionist’s own affidavit.  Instead, it balanced the legislative history and multiple expert witnesses testimonies given by the government.  In other words, the Court did not take abortionist testimony as fact, as it has done in the past.

Finally, the Court indicated that the question of when life begins is a scientific, and not necessarily ideological, fact.  It demanded scientific evidence from Planned Parenthood.  And because Planned Parenthood did not produce, it lost at the preliminary injunction stage.

What happens next with this case remains to be seen.  The informed consent provisions are not in the clear yet—the preliminary injunction stage is just one hurdle in the battle of constitutionality.  But at least as the lawsuit proceeds, the provisions will be in effect.