Pro-Life Page

by Steven Ertelt | Cincinnati, OH | LifeNews.com | 7/10/14 

A local judge in southwest Ohio has issued a ruling closing the abortion clinic run by infamous abortion practitioner Martin Haskell, credited with popularizing the partial-birth abortion procedure. A federal ban on the abortion procedure eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which initially overturned a Nebraska ban and later upheld the Congressional ban as constitutional.

Today, a Hamilton County magistrate issued a ruling to uphold the Ohio Health Department’s decision to close the Lebanon Road Surgery Center, Martin Haskell’s Sharonville abortion clinic, for failure to meet Ohio medical standards.

Specifically, Haskell’s clinic continues to operate without a transfer agreement with any area hospital. The magistrate promised to reverse a previous ruling that allowed the clinic to remain open, in a ruling he plans to file on July 10.

Today, Right to Life of Cincinnati informed LifeNews that Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Magistrate Michael Bachman has formally filed his decision onLebanon Road Surgery Center vs. State of Ohio Department of Health, for which he heard oral arguments last month.

“As decided June 30th, Magistrate Bachman has upheld the ODH’s order that Martin Haskell’s Women’s Med Center (aka Lebanon Road Surgery Center) abortion facility in Sharonville, Ohio be denied a license and closed for operating outside the law,” the group said. “During this court appeal, the Women’s Med Center abortion business has remained open under a stay of execution granted by Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jerry Metz – the judge to whom the case was originally assigned.”

The ruling closes the abortion clinic down by the end of business today.

“We want to thank the Health Department as well as Attorney General Mike DeWine for enforcing Ohio law and refusing to allow the abortion industry to dodge compliance with health and safety standards,” said Mike Gonidakis, President of Ohio Right to Life.  “With the closure of this facility, Ohio will have witnessed a total of six abortion mills close during Governor Kasich’s administration. We are endlessly grateful to see pro-life Ohio’s collective efforts to save lives come to fruition.”

According to Ohio law, Lebanon Road Surgery Center exists as an Ambulatory Surgical Facility and because of this legal status, the clinic is not a full-service medical facility. To operate legally, Lebanon Road Surgery Center must have a transfer agreement with a full-service private hospital to handle all cases of abortion complications against the mother. In the case that an abortion facility is unable to acquire a transfer agreement, it can apply for a variance (exception). Lebanon Road Surgery Center failed to obtain either. After the Ohio Department of Health ordered the facility to close in January, the facility appealed that ruling in court.

Late-term abortionist, Martin Haskell, who owns Lebanon Road Surgery Center, has performed abortions for more than 30 years. He is notorious for his advocacy of partial-birth abortion and is credited for popularizing the now banned and illegal procedure invented by a California abortionist. With the closing of Haskell’s clinic, only one abortion facility remains open inside the county with the third highest rate for abortion deaths in Ohio.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/7/14 

Michelle Hui had been pregnant with twins and miscarried, but Megan, now 18 weeks old, miraculously survived.

31-year-old Michelle Hui suffered a miscarriage in July 2013 and she was eventually given an abortion drug to “clear her uterus” and ensure that nothing was left of the baby inside of her. Although multiple ultrasound scans indicated the baby had died, when she later returned to the hospital, staff found another baby still alive.

Michelle had been carrying twins, and one had survived and now little Megan Hui, who was born in February at 6 pounds, is now 18 weeks old.

Here’s the rest of the story:

Expectant mum Michelle Hui was devastated when she had a miscarriage six weeks into her pregnancy.

Five scans confirmed her loss,then she had the trauma of taking an abortion pill to make sure nothing was left behind to cause infection.

But days later Michelle, 31, was being prepared for a final treatment to clear her uterus when incredibly a ­preparatory scan revealed a tiny heartbeat.

Amazed doctors discovered that she had been pregnant with twins – and one had miraculously survived both the miscarriage and the abortion.

Already a mum of two, Michelle went on to give birth to a beautiful baby girl, Megan, now 18 weeks old.

She and her salesman husband Ross, 33, could not be more proud.

“The miscarriage and abortion were absolutely horrific,” she said.

“The 10 days between the miscarriage and going back to the hospital were just a blur.

“To find out I had to go in for another procedure, I was devastated.

“But then I saw this little heartbeat, but I thought it couldn’t be right. After all we had been through, I didn’t want to get my hopes up.

“The doctor went out and came back in with a more senior doctor and he did the scan again and he said, ‘you are not going to believe it, we’ve got a heartbeat’. It was the best feeling ever.

“Now Megan is fine, she’s healthy and she is just a big healthy pudding of a baby. The doctors said it was a blessing. They have never heard of anything like it. Someone had been looking over us.”

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/4/14 

In another important victory against the HHS Mandate, Wheaton College received last minute relief from the Supreme Court, protecting the College’s right to carry out its religious mission free from crippling IRS fines.

The Court’s order states that Wheaton “need not use the form prescribed by the Government” under the HHS Mandate, and it prohibits the government “from enforcing against [Wheaton] the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review.”

The order gives Wheaton the same relief that the Supreme Court gave to the Little Sisters of the Poor in January. It comes just days after Hobby Lobby and Eternal Word Television Network won similar victories at the Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit (see video).

“The Court rightly recognized that Wheaton’s religious community should be allowed to practice its faith free from crushing government fines,”said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund, which represents Wheaton College.

Wheaton College is a pervasively Christian academic institution, whose motto is “For Christ and His Kingdom.” Its students, faculty, and staff commit to a Community Covenant that affirms “the God-given worth of human beings, from conception to death.”

“On the eve of Independence Day, we are grateful to God that the Supreme Court has made a wise decision in protecting our religious liberty–at least until we have an opportunity to make our full case in court. We continue to believe that a college community that affirms the sanctity of human life from conception to the grave should not be coerced by the government into facilitating the provision of abortion-inducing drugs,” said Dr. Philip Ryken, President of Wheaton College.

Today, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, Wheaton College joins Hobby Lobby, Eternal Word Television Network (see video) and many other organizations that that have received favorable rulings against the HHS Mandate. Non-profit religious organizations have now received 30 injunctions against the mandate; only three injunctions have been denied.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/2/14 

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s decision this weekthat the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part ofObamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

“Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs,” the poling firm reports about its new national survey.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Slightly more (47%) say companies should not be required to meet this contraceptive mandate included in the new national health care law.

Forty-nine percent (49%) believe a business should be allowed to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives if providing such health insurance coverage violates the religious beliefs of the business’ owner. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree, while 12% more are undecided.

In the new poll, just 38% of voters say it is at least somewhat important to their decision where to work whether a company pays for all contraceptive coverage. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say it’s not important. This includes 18% who rate a potential employer’s level of contraceptive coverage as Very Important and 31% who say it’s Not At All Important.

That points to a basic disagreement Americans have with groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, which claim Hobby Lobby is engaging a “war on women” by not funding the abortion-causing drugs.

“There’s virtually no disagreement between men and women on the importance of contraceptive coverage to their employment decisions,” Rasmussen says.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 30 – July1, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Those findings are consistent with previous Rasmussen polls showing more voters than not side with Hobby Lobby in its desire not to be forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs for its employees.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

by Cheryl Sullenger | Cleveland, OH | LifeNews.com | 7/1/14 

Operation Rescue has obtained the autopsy report of a woman who died from abortion complicationsthat shows evidence of standard of care problems at the Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

Lakisha Wilson, 22, received a late-term abortion at Preterm on March 21, 2014. Sometime after the abortion, Wilson stopped breathing, according to 911 records, and was transported to Chase University Medical Center, where she was placed on life support and pronounced dead on March 28.

The autopsy report show evidence that Wilson was not properly monitored after her abortion, a lapse that may have prevented her from receiving emergency care in time to save her life.

According to the report, Wilson suffered from “uterine atony,” which is a condition where the uterus does not properly contract after the abortion and thus leads to hemorrhage. Wilson suffered blood loss and went into shock, which was not immediately detected, or she would have been treated and stabilized.

Wilson did receive medications at Preterm that cause uterine contractions in an apparent effort to control the hemorrhage, but it appeared to be too little, too late.

Depressed respiration caused by sedation administered by abortion clinic personnel may have contributed to the lack of oxygen Wilson’s body received, compounding the medical crisis she experienced due to blood loss. As a result, Wilson suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and subsequent fatal brain damage while at the Preterm Abortion Clinic before paramedics were called.

“If Lakisha had been monitored properly, early signs of distress would have been rapidly detected and treated before she had deteriorated to the point of cardiopulmonary arrest,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Because there is now reason to believe that negligence was involved, we call upon Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty to launch a criminal investigation into the death of Lakisha Wilson and act quickly bring those responsible to justice.”

The autopsy report indicated that Wilson’s pre-born baby was 19.4 weeks gestation at the time of Wilson’s abortion, although no fetal remains were present during the autopsy. The Medical Examiner appears to have relied on abortion records for that information.

Wilson’s heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys were donated prior to the autopsy.

A coalition of pro-life groups have worked together to call attention to the Wilson tragedy and the fact that urban women of color are all too often targeted for abortion. The groups also demand the closure of the Preterm abortion facility as well as additional abortion reforms to protect women.

Groups involved include Cleveland Right to Life, Right to Life of Northeast Ohio, National Black Pro-Life Union, Life Issues Institute, Inc., Created Equal, African-American Outreach for Priests for Life, Issues4Life Foundation, Operation Rescue, and several local pastors and activists.

We are urging the public to contact Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty and urge his office to investigate Lakisha Wilson’s death.

Phone: 216.443.7800

LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue, a pro-life that monitors abortion practitioners and exposes their illegal and unethical practices.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/30/14 

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

The Obama administration was attempting to make Hobby Lobby and thousands of pro-life businesses and organizations comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees. However, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice SamuelAlito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

“If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price — as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies,” the opinion reads. “If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.”

“There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives,” the opinion concluded.

“The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs,” read the opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissent that claims the decision is “of startling breadth,” a claim the majority denies. The major decision indicates it applies to the abortion mandate, not blood transfusions or other practices to which people may have religious objections.

The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies, including Conestoga Wood Specialties, which had a companion case pending before the Supreme Court. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

The Obama administration said it was confident it would prevail, saying, “We believe this requirement is lawful…and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

Americans “don’t give up their rights to religious freedom just because they open a family-run business,” Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby. “This is a landmark decision for religious freedom. The Supreme Court recognized that Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.”

Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby, also responded: “Our family is overjoyed by the Supreme Court’s decision. Today the nation’s highest court has re-affirmed the vital importance of religious liberty as one of our country’s founding principles. The Court’s decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith. We are grateful to God and to those who have supported us on this difficult journey.”

See the pro-life reaction in pictures…

Responding to the decision, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman told LifeNews: “Americans don’t surrender their freedom by opening a family business. In its decision today, the Supreme Court affirmed that all Americans, including family business owners, must be free to live and work consistently with their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government. In a free and diverse society, we respect the freedom to live out our convictions. For the Hahns and the Greens, that means not being forced to participate in distributing potentially life-terminating drugs and devices.”

In July, a federal court granted Hobby Lobby a preliminary injunction against the HHS abortion-drug mandate. The injunction prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the mandate against the Christian company, but the Obama administration appealed that ruling. Hobby Lobby could have paid as much as $1.3 million each day in fines for refusing to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs under the mandate.

After the appeals court ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued a preliminary injunction and stayed the case until Oct. 1 to give the Obama administration time to appeal the decision.

In an opinion read from the bench, the court said, “There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.”

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.

The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, grew their family business out of their garage. They now own stores in 41 states employing more than 16,000 full time employees. They have always operated their business according to their faith.

Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director of the Becket Fund, tells LifeNews, “In fact, the Greens pay salaries that start at twice the minimum wage and offer excellent benefits, as well as a healthcare package which includes almost all of the contraceptives now mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Their only objection is to 4 drugs and devices which, the government itself concedes, can terminate an embryo.”

“Their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be protected by the government. Instead, the government has threatened them with fines and fought them all the way to the Supreme Court,” Arriaga added.

“The government has already exempted tens of millions of Americans from complying with the mandate that forces employers to provide certain specific drugs and devices. However, it refuses to accommodate the Green family because the Green family’s objections are religious.  We believe that the government’s position is not only extreme and unconstitutional; it presents a grave danger to our freedoms,” she continued.

“My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case,” said Mr. Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO.  “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

by Jordan Sekulow | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/28/14 

After being re-arrested less than a day after being released from death row for her Christian faith, Meriam Ibrahim and her American family have reportedly been released from the custody of Sudanese police forces on the condition that they not leave Sudan, as possible charges are brought against them.

They are not free.

Meriam and her American family were about to board a flight to freedom earlier this week, when 40 members of Sudan’s National Intelligence Security Service (known as the “Agents of Fear”) detained her along with her American husband and her two American kids – Martin, a toddler, and Maya, a newborn baby girl.  After being detained at the airport, Meriam and her American family were arrested and taken to the police station.

Sudan is accusing Meriam of attempting to use an “illegal [false] travel document” in trying to leave the country and is accusing her husband – a U.S. citizen – of being an accomplice.  It is unclear from reports if Sudan has formally charged Meriam with a crime, one that could carry with it a seven-year prison sentence, or whether they are still investigating the allegations.

Regardless, the fact remains that Meriam, her American husband, and her American kids are not free to leave the country.

Meriam’s attorney stated, “Meriam was released after a guarantor was found, but, of course, she would not be able to leave the country.”  Unlike bail in the U.S., in Sudan a guarantor would not just forfeit money, that person may actually have to stand in the place of Meriam criminally were she to flee the country.

According to press accounts, her lawyer also stated that Meriam and her American family are now in the U.S. embassy.  This is a critically important development for her safety.  However, they are not free to leave Sudan.

The United States must never let Meriam and her family who are U.S. citizens leave their sight from this point forward.  There were reports that when Meriam was taken into custody at the airport, it was done in the presence of U.S. diplomatic personnel.  This can never happen again.

Yesterday, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said that “from our perspective, Meriam has all of the documents she needs to travel to and enter the United States. It’s up to the Government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.”

Later that day the State Department released a short statement, providing:

The State Department has received confirmation that Meriam Ibrahim Ishag has been released on bail and is no longer being detained at a Sudanese police station. She and her family are in a safe location and the Government of Sudan has assured us of the family’s continued safety. The Embassy remains highly engaged in Ms. Ishag’s case. We will provide more information as it becomes available consistent with privacy laws.

The Obama Administration, and the State Department in particular, must continue to aggressively demand freedom for Meriam and her American family.  While not physically in the custody of the Sudanese government at the present time, Meriam and her American family are not truly free until they are safely in America.

It would be an act of diplomatic malpractice were the U.S. to allow Meriam and her American family to fall back into the hands of the Sudanese government – the government that just days ago planned to execute her for her Christian faith.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have demanded Meriam’s freedom.  Meriam expressed her gratitude for that support when she left the police station, telling the BBC, “I would like to thank those who stood beside me.”

At the ACLJ, we will not rest until Meriam, Martin, Maya, and Daniel, their American husband and father, are safely home.  Join us by urging the Obama Administration to take direct action to bring them home.

LifeNews Note: Jordan Sekulow is Executive Director of the American Center for Law & Justice and writes for On Faith’s blogging network at the Washington Post, where this column originally appeared.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/26/14 

In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts buffer zone law prohibiting pro-life free speech outside abortion clinics. The decision is a huge victory for pro-life sidewalk counselors who provide women with abortion alternatives.  The decision strikes down a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot “buffer zone” restricting pro-life advocates from speaking with people entering abortion facilities.

Saying the abortion buffer zone is “inconsistent with the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court ruled that that the buffer zone violated the First Amendment because it “restricts access to ‘public way[s]’ and ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech activities.”

Masschusetts Citizens for Life reacted to the decision in an email to LifeNews:

Massachusetts Citizens for Life welcomes the Supreme Court unanimous decision, McCullen v. Coakley, which strikes down the Massachusetts so-called Buffer Zone as a violation of the First Amendment. The court reiterates tradition in this country that the sidewalk is the vehicle for free speech.  There are already laws on the books which prohibit blocking entrances, harassing people, etc.​The McCullen decision makes it clear that more restrictive laws may be written only if the current laws are not working – something that the state of Massachusetts failed to prove.

Mark Rienzi, professor of constitutional law at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and lead counsel in McCullen v. Coakley, told LifeNews, “Americans have the freedom to talk to whomever they please on public sidewalks. That includes peaceful pro-lifers like Eleanor McCullen, who just wants to offer information and help to women who would like it. The Supreme Court has affirmed a critical freedom that has been an essential part of American life since the nation’s founding.”

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, told LifeNews:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling in McCullen v. Coakley is wonderful news for all Americans because it upholds our crucial First Amendment rights of free speech but perhaps no more important than for women considering abortion because it frees sidewalk counselors at abortion facilities to be able to offer compassionate and caring alternatives.

“While the ruling is great news for the free speech of anti-abortion advocates, this isn’t about us. This is about giving women the opportunity to be informed of all of their options and isn’t that what the pro-abortion movement is all about? If Planned Parenthood and their allies truly favored choice and not their pocketbooks, they would be elated at this decision as well. Because if abortion is right and harms no one, then why not give the woman a chance at choosing life by presenting her options she may not even know about? Sidewalk counselors can’t stop women from having abortions, but they can offer information, resources, and just a listening ear  to those young women who feel desperate and alone.

“Because of this ruling striking down the buffer zone and upholding our constitutional rights, pro-life students across the nation will continue to be that compassionate lifeline for women in their most desperate hour, helping her to choose life for both her and her child.”

          Americans United for Life legal counsel Bill Saunders previously wrote at LifeNews about the scope and magnitude of the case:

For years, the government in Massachusetts has been treating public sidewalks as private property of the abortion clinic, with criminal penalties for anyone that offers life-affirming alternatives.  But among the decisions to be issued by the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of June is a case challenging that restrictive Massachusetts law, McCullen v. Coakley. Hopefully, the Court will go further  and reverse a 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado, which has been the basis of restrictions on pro-life free speech ever since.

In 2007, Massachusetts enacted a law that prohibits anyone to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent” to a stand-alone abortion facility, but it does not equally apply to all persons. The “no entry zone” is actually a “no pro-life speech” zone, as the Massachusetts government explicitly exempts employees or agents of the abortion facilityacting within their scope of employment.

Americans United for Life has been actively involved opposing this anti-American, anti-speech law, twice filing an amicus brief on behalf of 40 Days for Life. In 2009, we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case (on petition for cert). This past fall, we filed again, urging the Court to overturn the law.

The AUL brief explains how the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of 40 Days for Life by establishing a no pro-life speech zone, where no alternatives to abortion may be offered.  Contrary to the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, it forces pro-life speakers to either shout (from 35 feet away) or be silent, effectively foreclosing speech by those who engage in personal, direct, peaceful communication.

An abortion clinic employee, under the law, is allowed to approach women on the public sidewalk and say anything. However, our client, 40 Days for Life, cannot on that same public sidewalk offer, “I can help you” or even stand and pray without facing criminal penalties.

Even if a woman consents to listen or wants to hear what 40 Days has to say on that public sidewalk, that communication is not allowed by the draconian Massachusetts law.

Such blatant viewpoint discrimination should be held unconstitutional, even under the standards of the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado. Important to the Court’s finding in  Hill that the “no approach” Colorado statute was “viewpoint neutral” was that it applied to “all” speakers: “That is the level of neutrality that the Constitution demands.”  The Massachusetts statute clearly does not meet that test.

But the Court in McCullen has the opportunity to do more than merely correctly applyHill; it has the opportunity to correct the strained reasoning of the majority in Hill   that upheld the Colorado statute.

In Hill, Justice Kennedy poignantly opened his dissent, writing that “[t]he Court’s holding contradicts more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles. For the first time, the Court approves a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.” He continued, “If from this time forward the Court repeats its grave errors of analysis, we shall have no longer the proud tradition of free and open discourse in a public forum.”

It is time to reverse Hill.  Let us hope the Supreme Court will do so, thereby restoring the free speech rights of pro-life Americans not only in Massachusetts but throughout the land.

by Josh Brahm | Birmingham, AL | LifeNews.com | 6/25/14 

The Christian Post reports today that the Alabama Women’s Center, the sole abortion facility in North Alabama is scheduled to close its doors on Friday.

This is due to them failing to meet all of the requirements of the Women’s Health and Safety Act, which stipulates that doctors working at Alabama abortion facilities must have hospital admitting privileges in the same city where they do abortions, and they must meet the same building safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers. According to an al.com report, these safety standards require a number of things, including making hallways at abortion clinics wide enough to accommodate patient gurneys.

According to a WAFF report, while the Alabama Women’s Center was able to meet some requirements of the new state law, they were unable to meet the building safety standards in time, so they chose to voluntarily surrender their license. They are working to open a new abortion facility in the area as soon as possible. There are also three abortion facilities in Alabama that will remain open, Planned Parenthood in Mobile, West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa and Reproductive Health Services in Montgomery.

From the Christian Post report:

James Henderson, executive director of Christian Coalition of Alabama, which has been protesting the clinic for the last 10 years along with other pro-life activists, told al.com that they will have a memorial for all the babies killed at the clinic.

“We’re going to have a memorial service and remember the lives that should have been,” he said. “By reasonable estimates, there have been over 30,000 unborn babies killed at the various abortion clinics in Huntsville.

“It’s wiped out a city larger than Athens and almost as big as Madison.”

Pro-choice supporters told WAFF, however, that the closure of the abortion clinic was just another way for the state to restrict women’s reproductive rights and called it a “wasted effort.”

“We have women coming here from Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, middle and South Alabama that don’t care about access to local emergency rooms because they don’t stay in town for it,” said clinic advocate Kathy Zentner. “If the legislators really cared about women and health, they would make facilities available.

Of course, women don’t stay care about access to a hospital until she’s tragically hurt in a botched abortion. It’s like saying, “I don’t care about living near a hospital, because I don’t ever go to the hospital.” Sure, until you get hit by a car, when you really want to be able to get to a hospital.

There’s a reason why the Alabama legislature voted for this bill, and that was to protect women’s safety, regardless of whether they know how many other women have been hurt by botched abortions.