Life Advocacy Briefing

Here We Are Again

THOUGH WE HAD HOPED – and need – to take off a little time while Congress was recessed, the firehose of abortion news continues. We hope you will find our weekly visits worthy of your time and prayer and, in many instances, action. Readers who would like to offer encouragement to Life Advocacy are invited to visit the “donate” section of www.lifeadvocacy.com, credit card in hand!

 

Texas Version of ‘Heartbeat Abortion Ban’ Takes Effect!

THE ABORTION CARTEL IS IN PANIC. The Supreme Court last week refused to enjoin enforcement of the Texas ‘Heartbeat’ law, making abortion a very costly proposition in America’s second-largest state.

Here is the big-media-jolting news as reported by CNN’s Supreme Court reporter Ariane deVogue:

“The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The Court’s move means that the law – which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people [!] know they are pregnant – will remain on the books.”

The report goes on to describe – fairly accurately, in our view – the uniqueness of the Texas approach, as distinguished from abortion bans which criminalize the brutal act. “The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person[!] seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.”

The abortion lobby will – we have no doubt – once it recovers from its initial shock, behave as though the Court’s ruling is a great calamity, something akin, perhaps, to America’s President snatching defeat from a 20-year victory in some far-flung terrorist haven.

Troops will be assembled, and the defenders of the God-given right to Life will be assailed as extremists who would deny “rights” to innocent women. Oops. Problem there. The abortion lobby and its media friends like CNN no longer count expectant mothers as women in their crazed drive to affirm “transgenderism.” So, they will, this time around, have to appeal simply to “persons” in their propaganda.

Meanwhile, the high court itself is evidently stressed, with the five majority justices assuring readers, reports CNN, “that it had not formed a conclusion about the constitutionality of the [Texas Heartbeat] law.  … ‘In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law,’” the majority Justices wrote, as quoted by CNN, “‘and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.’”

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, notes CNN, “called the majority’s opinion ‘stunning. … No federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law,’ she wrote. ‘Taken together, the Act is a breathtaking act of defiance – of the Constitution [sic], of this Court’s precedents and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas.’”

Chief Justice Roberts, in his own dissent, “said that he voted to block the law for now,” reports CNN, “to give the court more time to consider the unusual statute. [Mr. Justice] Roberts said that the state legislature had imposed a ‘prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks’ and then ‘essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large’ with the consequences of insulating the state from the responsibility of enforcing the law.’ The law was designed,” notes the CNN reporter, “to make it much more difficult to bring a pre-enforcement challenge, because there are not the usual government officials to hold accountable in court.” Yup. Got it.

 

Unique Approach

THERE IS NO QUESTION that the Texas Heartbeat Law is a unique approach in pro-life jurisprudence, one which presents significant hurdles to the knee-jerk lawyers that have, for nearly 50 years, followed a single playbook in challenging state laws seeking to limit or outlaw abortions.

As outlined by the Associated Press (AP): “Texas lawmakers wrote the law to evade federal court review by allowing private citizens to bring civil lawsuits in state court against anyone involved in an abortion, other than the patient.” [Note: the statute protects the abortion-seeking mother from penalty, much as most state abortion-restrictive criminal statutes do.]

“Other abortion laws are enforced by state and local officials, with criminal sanctions possible,” explains AP. “In contrast, Texas’s law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone involved in facilitating abortions. Among other situations, that would include anyone who drives a woman to a clinic to get an abortion.

“Under the law, anyone who successfully sues another person,” notes AP, “would be entitled to at least $10,000.”

And demonstrating how not-routine the legal process is in responding to this law, AP reports “a federal appeals court refused to allow a prompt review of the law before it took effect.” A report in the New York Times elaborates a bit, noting, “A federal trial judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case and scheduled a hearing on whether to block the law. But the US Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit, in New Orleans, canceled the hearing.” In other words, the appellate court also permitted it to take effect on its scheduled date. Upon the appellate court’s turning of a blind eye, “the measure’s opponents,” reports AP, “sought Supreme Court review.” Oh well.

 

Swift, Typical Response

THE HEAD OF THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, one of America’s chief abortion litigation outfits, Nancy Northup was quoted in the Associated Press story from a statement issued Sept. 2, “vow[ing] to ‘keep fighting this ban until abortion access is restored in Texas. …

“‘We are devastated that the Supreme Court has refused to block a law that blatantly violates Roe v. Wade. Right now,’” she said, quoted by AP, “‘people seeking abortion across Texas are panicking; they have no idea where or when they will be able to get an abortion, if ever.’” [Oh, the drama of it all!]

“‘Texas politicians have succeeded for the moment in making a mockery of the rule of law, up-ending abortion care in Texas and forcing patients to leave the state – if they have the means – to get constitutionally protected health care. This should send chills down the spine of everyone in this country who cares about the Constitution,’ she said,” according to AP.

Texas lawmakers, our readers might recall, have broken ground before. Thanks to what AP calls “a sweeping law passed in 2013,” which was eventually struck down by the high court, “more than half of the state’s 40-plus clinics closed.”

 

What’s Happening?

THE FALLOUT BEGINS in the Texas abortion industry. According to CNN, “Whole Women’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, said it is offering abortion services ‘only if no embryonic or fetal cardiac activity is detected in the sonogram,’ … and several other providers [sic] are also taking that approach.’”

Note New York Times (NYT) reporters Adam Liptak, J. David Goodman and Sabrina Tavernise, “The Texas law … amounts to a nearly complete ban on abortion in Texas, because 85 to 90% of [abortion] procedures in the state happen after the sixth week of pregnancy, according to lawyers for several clinics.

“On Tuesday night,” the NYT team write, “clinics were scrambling to see patients until the minute the law went into effect, with six-hour waits for procedures in some places. By Wednesday [Sept. 1], the patient lists had shrunk, clinic workers said in interviews.”

The potential consequences apparently had been communicated to the Supreme Court, according to the NYT. “In the emergency application urging the justices to intervene,” write the team, “abortion providers in the state said the new law ‘would immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas’ and most likely force ‘many abortion clinics ultimately to close.’ …

“Dr. Jessica Rubino, a doctor at Austin Women’s Health Center,” which the NYT reporters described as “a small, independent clinic in the state capital,” said, in the NYT report, “at first, she wanted to defy what appeared to be an unconstitutional law. But she said she concluded that doing so would put her staff at risk.” Not to mention her own bottom line.

“‘If this was a criminal ban, we’d know what this is and what we can and cannot do,’ Dr. Rubino said” in the NYT report. “‘But this ban has civil implications. It requires a lawyer to go to court. It requires lawyers’ fees. And then $10,000 if we don’t win. What happens if everybody is sued, not just me?’ She added: ‘My staff is nervous. They’ve been asking, “What about our families?”’

“Dr. Rubino said her clinic had ‘struggled so much to come up with any plan to take care of anyone’ under the new law,” write the NYT reporters, “and on Wednesday was sorting out what the new policies would be. For example, she wondered, if someone knows they are more than six or seven weeks pregnant – roughly the new legal limit – should the clinic advise them to go out of state and not waste money on an ultrasound?

“Doctors who are sued, even if the suit is dismissed, have to report the lawsuits when they renew licenses or obtain hospital admitting privileges,” write the NYT team, attributing the concern to Amy Hagstrom Miller, whom they identify as “chief executive at Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas.”

And at Planned Parenthood? Inside Planned Parenthood Center for Choice in Houston, report the NYT writers, “Dr. Bhavik Kumar, a staff physician, said he had seen six patients by Wednesday afternoon, down from the usual 30.”  

The beauty of the Texas Heartbeat Law begins to shine.

 

A Caution & an Appeal

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME an action by the Supreme Court – even though not the definitive action conscientious Americans seek – has roiled the abortion issue into prominence.

When, in 1989, the Supreme Court considered – and ultimately upheld – a minor Missouri abortion law, the abortion lobby fired up a massive political effort to respond to what it feared would be an overturning of Roe v. Wade. That overturning did not happen, but the abortion lobby – flush with cash from suddenly energized donors and from the abortion industry itself – acted as though the sky had fallen and crafted a massive political operation to oust pro-life state lawmakers.

The panic being displayed by the abortion cartel in their current legal situation is not without justification, but pro-life citizens and officials must respond now not with satisfaction – though a cheer or two are clearly in order – but with anticipation of a renewed political attack against state lawmakers who cherish the right to life.

Now is the time – for so many reasons and in so many arenas – for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country and of their pro-life officeholders. Abortion will be near the top of the issue pyramid in the 2022 elections – certainly in Congress but also in the state legislatures – and pro-life citizens must run for office or give robust backing to those who do. And candidates must prepare themselves to take the truth to the public and expect to be smeared.

 

The Battle Is On

Sept. 2, 2021, The Point commentary by John Stonestreet of BreakPoint

A new Texas state law bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks after conception. Opponents had appealed the law, but neither the Supreme Court nor a federal appeals court acted to block it. The law went into effect Wednesday.

Among those who oppose the law are a group known as the Reproductive Freedom Congregations, a coalition of 25 churches, who seek to “eradicate stigma” around abortion, LGBTQ, climate change, and a half dozen other popular progressive causes. Another 70 churches are in process to become members of the group.

One pastor said that joining this coalition is “about knowledge being the basis of your sexual life, so that the more you know, the better decisions you make.” Without exception, each congregation and every pastor that is part of the Reproductive Freedom Congregations have already decided that neither Biblical revelation nor historic Christian orthodoxy are valid sources for knowledge or ethics in the modern world.

You can be sure: anyone who supports abortion already gave up on Scripture.

 

Official Statement from the Vice President

Sept. 1, 2021, Statement by Vice Pres. Kamala Harris (D) on Texas Heartbeat Law

             Today, a new law takes effect in Texas that directly violates the precedent established in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. This all-out assault on reproductive health effectively bans abortion for the nearly 7 million Texans of reproductive age. Patients in Texas will now be forced to travel out-of-state or carry their pregnancy to term against their will.

             This law will dramatically reduce access to reproductive care for women in Texas, particularly for women with low incomes and women of color. It also includes a disturbing provision that incentivizes private citizens to sue anyone who assists another person in receiving an abortion. 

             The Biden-Harris Administration will always fight to protect access to health care and defend a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and determine her future.

 

Official Statement from the President

Sept. 1, 2021, Statement by Pres. Joe Biden (D) on Texas Heartbeat Law

             Today, Texas law SB-8 went into effect. This extreme Texas law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade and upheld as precedent for nearly half a century.

             The Texas law will significantly impair women’s access to the health care they need, particularly for communities of color and individuals with low incomes. And, outrageously, it deputizes private citizens to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has helped another person get an abortion, which might even include family members, health care workers, front desk staff at a health care clinic, or strangers with no connection to the individual.

             My Administration is deeply committed to the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago and will protect and defend that right.

 

Did He Really Say…?

Quote from Pres. Biden’s statement according to Press Sec’y Jen Psaki in Sept. 2 news conference, though this quote does not appear in the officially released statement

             For the majority to do this without a hearing, without the benefit of an opinion from a court below and without due consideration of the issues insults the rule of law and rights of all Americans to seek redress from our courts.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: In the Administration statements above – particularly the brief quote offered by Ms. Psaki – the White House either misconstrues or joins the abortion cartel in intentionally mis-stating the nature of the Supreme Court’s action. What the Supreme Court did was to allow to take effect a statute duly enacted by the legislature and governor of the State of Texas. What the Supreme Court did not do was to pass final judgment on that statute. As Fox News, attributing Associated Press as its source, states: “The Justices … suggested that their order likely isn’t the last word on whether the law can stand, because other challenges to it can still be brought.”]