Tag: abortion

THE FIGHT FOR LIFE: Constitution’s 13th Amendment May Protect Abortion as a Federal Right, Says Judge

by Breck Worsham, posted in health, law, news

WASHINGTON (The Epoch Times)– The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, may protect abortion as a federal right, a federal judge said on Feb. 6 in an ongoing prosecution of pro-life activists charged with conspiracy to block access to an abortion clinic.

The statement could open up a new line of attack that pro-choice activists could use to advance their cause after the Supreme Court overturned the 49-year-old precedent Roe v. Wade, holding that the Constitution does not protect abortion as a right.

The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, handed down in June 2022, opened the door to a flurry of lawsuits and new state-level restrictions on abortion.

Roe itself held that a right to abortion was part of a right to privacy that emanates from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Its companion precedent, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which was also overturned, held that states could not impose significant restrictions on abortion before a fetus became viable for life outside the womb. Casey was based on the idea that obtaining an abortion was a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The comment came in a ruling issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Lauren Handy and nine other defendants were indicted (pdf) last year for conspiring to obstruct access to an abortion clinic in October 2020, a violation of federal law. Handy moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, quoting the Dobbs ruling, which states that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”

Handy is the director of activism for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, which describes its mission as mobilizing “grassroots anti-abortion activists for direct action and [to] educate on the exploitative influence of the Abortion Industrial Complex through an anti-capitalist lens.”

After being released from jail in July 2022 on a separate charge, Handy said: “As a Catholic and Progressive myself, I am compelled by my deeply held beliefs (religious and political) to put my body between the oppressed and the oppressor.”

But Handy’s “constitutional argument is predicated on the false legal premise” that the federal statute she is challenging “only regulates access to abortion,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her new order (pdf). In fact, the law “regulates a broad category of ‘reproductive health services,’ including, among other things, ‘counselling or referral services.’”

Handy is seeking to resolve the charges against her by citing a constitutional holding, so Kollar-Kotelly directed defense counsel and prosecutors to further brief the court.

Although Dobbs has been interpreted to mean that “the Supreme Court held that no provision of the Constitution extends any right to reproductive health services … the Court is uncertain that this is the case,” the judge wrote.

Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Dobbs focused only on the Fourteenth Amendment and the unratified Equal Rights Amendment, so “it is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised. However, it was not raised.”

Scholars and one federal appeals court decision suggest the Thirteenth Amendment in particular “might contain some right to access to such services,” she wrote.

The judge ordered prosecutors to file a brief by March 3 and defense counsel to file a reply brief by March 17 on whether the Dobbs ruling is limited to Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

Kollar-Kotelly is no stranger to controversy.

In October 2017, the Clinton appointee issued a preliminary injunction blocking then-President Donald Trump’s memorandum extending a ban on transgender persons joining the military and directing the military to discharge currently serving transgender service members, according to Ballotpedia.

————

Matthew Vadum of The Epoch Times contributed to the contents of this report.

Advertisement

STRUCK DOWN: Senate Fails To Pass Democrat Abortion Bill

by Breck Worsham, posted in health, law, news, politics

WASHINGTON (Breitbart)– Senate Democrats on Wednesday failed to pass legislation that would prohibit local, state, and federal governments from preventing abortions.

The Senate attempted to invoke cloture and end debate on S. 4132, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. The motion failed 49-51, as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) opposed the motion, and it required 60 votes to invoke cloture. The legislation would prohibit government restrictions on access to abortions. Specifically, the legislation states that governments may not limit a healthcare provider’s ability to:

  • Prescribe certain drugs
  • Offer abortion services via telemedicine
  • Immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient’s health

The legislation, according to Congress.gov, stipulates:

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient’s life or health.

The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill’s specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.

The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.

The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill’s enactment.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)  sponsored the legislation after Politico leaked a draft Supreme Court opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade. The Senate Democrats proposed the legislation to attempt to enshrine many of the pro-abortion protections enabled by the landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a statement after the vote:

Today’s vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act is a continuation of the left’s mission to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and prop up their abortion-on-demand agenda. This bill would force states to legalize late-term abortions, remove informed consent laws, and prevent restrictions on gruesome fetal dismemberment procedures. Today, I stood up to the woke mob and voted to protect women and their unborn children.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who voted against the bill, said that the bill “would disenfranchise every voter in Missouri, overturn our state laws – and give the power to DC Democrats.”

Sean Moran of Breitbart contributed to the contents of this report.

REPORT: Conservative Supreme Court Justices Being Targeted at Their Homes By Pro-Abortion Protesters

by Breck Worsham, posted in law, media, news, politics

WASHINGTON (Breitbart)– Leftist activists are directing protestors to confront conservative Supreme Court Justices at their homes in Maryland and Virginia.

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch are all targets by an organization called, “Ruth Sent Us.” The organization has published the justices’ supposed home addresses online for the radical protestors to locate.

Ruth seems to be a reference to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a ardent defender of the right to abortion. But this group’s use of her name is ironic, because Ginsburg was very collegial with her conservatives colleagues, including her best friend, Justice Antonin Scalia, and because Ginsburg criticized Roe as a bad decision, despite agreeing with its conclusion.

“Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights,” the group’s website states. “We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.”

The website also asked protestors to “rise up May 8-15 and beyond… At the homes of the six extremist justices, three in Virginia and three in Maryland.” The site says the main protest is scheduled for May 11.

It is not the first time radical-left organizations have mobilized to intimidate political opponents at their homes. In September, protestors under the banner of ShutDownDC picketed outside Kavanaugh’s home to express angst against pro-life laws. In January, the same organization was also responsible for the protests outside Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) home in Virginia.

“Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can’t travel,” Hawley said at the time. “They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.”

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday admitted the left’s radical protestors may turn violent against the justices in the coming days. “We hate to say this, but some abortion fanatic could decide to commit an act of violence to stop a 5-4 ruling. It’s an awful thought, but we live in fanatical times,” the board penned.

The potential violence follows a Monday Supreme Court leak that revealed Roe v. Wade may be overturned. “Our guess is that the leak is likely to backfire at the Court,” the Journal continued.

“A Justice who switched his or her vote now would be open to ridicule for wilting under pressure,” the Journal added. “It would also invite more leaks in the future by showing they get results. A pattern of pre-emptive leaks of draft opinions would destroy the Court.”

Breitbart’s Wendell Husebo contributed to the contents of this report.

BREAKING: Draft Ruling Shows Supreme Court Rules to Overturn Roe v. Wade

by Breck Worsham, posted in health, law, media, politics

WASHINGTON– In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

Source: Politico

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion below.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504

JUDICIAL WATCH: New FDA Records Show Obama Administration Purchased Organs, Heads and Tissue From Full Term Aborted Babies

by Breck Worsham, posted in Uncategorized

WASHINGTON — Judicial Watch announced today that it received 198 pages of records and communications from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involving “humanized mice” research with human fetal heads, organs and tissue, including communications and contracts with human fetal tissue provider Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR). Most of the records are communications and related attachments between Perrin Larton, a procurement manager for ABR, and research veterinary medical officer Dr. Kristina Howard of the FDA.

Judicial Watch received the records through a March 2019 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of which the FDA is a part (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services (No. 1:19-cv-00876)). The lawsuit asks for all contracts and related documentation on disbursement of funds, procedural documents and communications between FDA and ABR for the provision of human fetal tissue to be used in humanized mice research. After successfully opposing the FDA’s redaction of certain information from its records, a federal court ordered HHS to release additional information about its purchases of organs harvested from aborted human fetuses – including “line item prices,” or the price per organ the government paid to ABR. The court also found “there is reason to question” whether the transactions violate federal law barring the sale of fetal organs. Documents previously uncovered in this lawsuit show that the federal government demanded the purchased fetal organs be “fresh and never frozen.”)

The records include an FDA generated contract with ABR, based on a “requisition” it issued on July 27, 2012, for $12,000 worth of “tissue procurement for humanized mice,” indicates the requisition was for a “non-competitive award.” Although the initial award was for $12,000, the total estimated amount of funds allocated for the requisition was $60,000. Under “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition,” the FDA writes:

Scientists within the FDA and in the larger field of humanized mouse research have searched extensively over the past several years and ABR is the only company in the U.S. capable of supplying tissues suitable for HM research. No other company or organization is capable of fulfilling the need.

Costs are estimated [for the fetal parts] at $230 per tissue x two tissues per shipment = $460 plus $95 shipping = $555 per shipment. A total of 21 shipments = $11,655.00.

An April 1, 2013, “Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract” form that shows the FDA purchased fetal livers and thymuses from ABR going back to at least October 2012, billing $580 per liver/thymus set, but later paying a unit price of $685.

A January 1, 2013, “Fees for Services Schedule” provided by ABR to the FDA includes:

FETAL CADAVEROUS PROCUREMENT                                                            SERVICE FEE

2nd trimester D&E [Dilation and Evacuation abortion] (13-24 weeks)       per specimen     $275

1st trimester aspiration [abortion] (8-12 weeks)                                        per specimen     $515

Intact Calvarium [baby’s skull] (8-24 weeks)”                                        per specimen     $515

The fees for services schedule also includes “Special Processing/Preservation” of the fetal parts, such as “Tissue ‘Cleaning,’” “Snap freezing” and “Passive freezing (Dry ice).”

In a September 9, 2014, “Order for Supplies or Services,” the FDA writes regarding a $9,900 order:

The Contractors shall ship 2nd Trimester thymus $325, 2nd Trimester liver $325. Overnight deliver $150 and EFT wire transfer fee $25, for a total per delivery of $825. Total of this contract not to exceed $9,900.00.

As the result of an August 21, 2015, “Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract,” ABR bumped up the price of baby livers and thymuses from $325 each to $340 each.

A “Tissue Acquisition Quote” sent by ABR to Howard on July 5, 2017, provided a quote of $5,440 each to provide 16 sets of second trimester (16-24 weeks) livers and 16 sets of second trimester (16-24 weeks) thymuses at $340 per “sample.” The request for the quote notes that “tissue known to be positive for HIV, HepA, HepB, HepC or chromosomal abnormalities are not acceptable.”

On June 28, 2017, a redacted FDA contract specialist sends Larton at ABR a request for a quote (RFQ) of pricing for human fetal tissue, aged “16-24 weeks,” including a “Statement of Needs”:

The HM [humanized mice] are created by surgical implantations of human tissue into mice that have multiple genetic mutations that block the development of the mouse immune system at a very early stage. The absence of the mouse immune system allows the human tissues to grow and develop into functional human tissues…. In order for the humanization to proceed correctly we need to obtain fetal tissue with a specific set of specialized characteristics.

A May 2018, report from a company named “LABS,” which was employed by ABR to test fetal parts and their mothers for hepatitis and HIV, notes in its “methodology description” that they are approved by the FDA “for living and cadaveric donor screening.”

The records include a recitation of requirements by the FDA for “Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer,” in which ABR must adhere to regulations relating to “Convict Labor” and “Child Labor-Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies.”

On September 24, 2018, the Trump FDA terminated its contract with ABR for human tissue purchases and began an audit of its acquisitions of baby body parts. The records include the FDA’s letter terminating the contract:

Based on the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order as awarded to Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (“ABR”) on July 27, 2018, the Government is not sufficiently assured that the human tissue provided to the Government to humanize the immune systems of mice will comply with the prohibitions set forth under 42 U.S.C. § 289g- 2. Furthermore, the Government has concerns with the sufficiency of the sole-source justification. Therefore, pursuant to FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] clause 52.213-4(f), the Purchase Order is being terminated effective September 24, 2018.

“Chopping up aborted human beings for their organs and tissue is a moral and legal outrage,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This issue should be front and center in any debate about America’s barbaric abortion industry.”

In February 2020, Judicial Watch first uncovered through this lawsuit hundreds of pages of records from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) showing that the agency paid thousands of dollars to a California-based firm to purchase organs from aborted human fetuses to create “humanized mice” for HIV research.

In May 2021, this lawsuit uncovered FDA records showing the agency spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy human fetal tissue from ABR. The tissue was used in creating “humanized mice” to test “biologic drug products.” The records indicated the FDA wanted tissue purchases “Fresh; shipped on wet ice.”

On August 3, 2021, Judicial Watch announced that it and The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), through a separate lawsuit, received 252 pages of new documents from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that reveal nearly $3 million in federal funds were spent on the University of Pittsburgh’s quest to become a “Tissue Hub” for human fetal tissue ranging from 6 to 42 weeks’ gestation. The Pitt scientists note that, “All fetal tissue is collected through a collaborative process including Family Planning, Obstetrics and Pathology.” Pitt anticipated “being able to harvest and distribute quality tissue and cells … [and] do not anticipate any major problems related to the acquisition and distribution of the tissues.” Pitt’s target goal “is to have available a minimum of 5 cases (tissues and if possible other biologicals) per week of gestational age for ages 6-42 weeks.”

Barack Obama

THE FIGHT FOR LIFE: SCOTUS Hears Case That Could Destroy Roe v. Wade

by Breck Worsham, posted in Uncategorized

WASHINGTON (The Hill) — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a dispute over a Mississippi law that bans virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, potentially setting the 6-3 conservative majority court on a collision course with the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

The move was announced in an unsigned order, with the justices indicating the dispute would be limited to the major issue of the constitutionality of pre-viability restrictions on elective abortions. 

The case was brought on appeal by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) after a federal appeals court sided with challengers to the state’s restriction. 

The Supreme Court has undergone a dramatic conservative shift since last year when Mississippi first asked the justices to take up its appeal.

Last term, a bare 5-4 majority voted to block a Louisiana abortion limit, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote alongside Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the court’s three other more liberal justices.

But the late Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart, has since been replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cementing a 6-3 conservative court and throwing the future of longstanding abortion protections into question.

At least four justices must agree to hear a case for an appeal to be granted.

Abortion rights advocates expressed concern over Monday’s development.

“Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court just agreed to review an abortion ban that unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and is a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

The Mississippi law is among hundreds of abortion restrictions that have been introduced recently in state legislatures across the country. In 2021 alone, more than 500 abortion restrictions, including nearly 150 abortion bans, were introduced in 46 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, just over 60 measures have been enacted.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) hailed the Supreme Court’s move on Monday as a chance to give states more latitude.

“This is a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court to recognize the right of states to protect unborn children from the horrors of painful late-term abortions,” SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.

Mississippi’s appeal comes after losing two rounds in the lower courts. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that the state’s restriction placed an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy before viability. 

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability,” reads the opinion of a three-judge panel. “States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

The Hill’s John Kruzel contributed to the contents of this report.

Trump ‘Surprised’ Over Recent Supreme Court Rulings; Warns Conservatives ‘Not Doing Too Well’

by Breck Worsham, posted in Uncategorized

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he was “surprised” by a series of Supreme Court rulings against him and warned that conservatives are “not doing too well.”

The Supreme Court is “supposed to be in our favor,” the president said during an interview with CBN’s David Brody.

“I was surprised, I was surprised,” the president said of the court’s most decision that LGBTQ workers are protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act under Title VII. “Some people felt that it was a decision that they weren’t as surprised as I was. Yeah, I was surprised.”

“So far we’re not doing too well,” the president said. “Look: We’ve had a lot of losses, with a court that was supposed to be in our favor. This is just to show what it means.

“We need — you know you’ll probably have a couple of more judges in the next four years,” he said. “It could even be more than that, it could be three or four. If you have a radical left group of judges, religion, I think will be almost wiped out in America. If you look at it, pro-life will be absolutely wiped out. So, if you have that happening, pro-life is going to be out, it’s going to be gone.”