Abortion_Quick_&_Pain_Free_sign,_Joe_Slovo_Park,_Cape_Town,_South_Africa-3869 (1)

Only Miles From Democrat Convention, Kermit Gosnell’s Clinic Brings Abortion Industry Horrors to Forefront

Three years after he was convicted of murder, Kermit Gosnell’s shuttered abortion clinic still stands mere miles from Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center, home to this week’s Democratic National Convention.

As Democrats gather in the city to anoint their presidential candidate, film director and citizen journalist David Altrogge is preparing the release of a new film, “3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy.” The award-winning documentary, hailed by media commentators including Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper on CNN, will release on iTunes and Amazon Video on Aug. 2.

The documentary tells the true story of Gosnell and Altrogge cannot help but express outrage after careful research of the facts.

“Real women and babies lost their lives—because the Pennsylvania Department of State and the Department of Health chose to look the other way,” he said in a recent interview. “Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, can’t we at least agree that women deserve better?”

Interviewing Gosnell over seven months, Altrogge developed a relationship of sorts with the notorious abortion doctor—who is currently serving three life sentences in a Pennsylvania prison for involuntary manslaughter of a woman seeking an abortion at his clinic and first-degree murder of three infants born alive (among other criminal charges). Gosnell himself narrates many scenes in the “3801 Lancaster” documentary.

Now, Altrogge shares his response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the practices of Planned Parenthood, and why citizens should not stay silent.

Q: What is your reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision last month, striking down the Texas law that would have provided higher clinic safety standards?

A: I’m disappointed by the court’s decision. It was my hope that, as a nation, we would learn from what happened in Philadelphia at Dr. Gosnell’s clinic and implement commonsense clinic regulations to prevent it from happening again in Texas and elsewhere.

The grand jury report in the Gosnell case specifically recommended the implementation of ambulatory surgical center standards to protect women seeking abortions, which is what Texas did through state law HB 2. This Supreme Court decision makes it clear our country hasn’t learned what happens when we make women’s access to abortion a higher priority than women’s safety. It’s only a matter of time before our nation has another abortion clinic disaster like we had in Philadelphia.

Q: After spending hours upon hours interviewing Kermit Gosnell personally, why do you believe he subjected women to such poor medical treatment?

A: Before actually meeting him, the media reports I heard about Kermit Gosnell were that he’s a monster. Then when I started talking to him I realized, ‘Oh my gosh! He’s thought through what he’s doing and he has rational reasons for it.’

It is much easier if we view him as like a “B movie” monster and an aberration. It makes us feel better to think, ‘OK, that was one crazy guy, but thank goodness he was an outlier and there aren’t others like him.’

What’s so troubling is you look at him and you have to ask the questions: What did he believe? What ideas did he buy into over the years that allowed him to be okay with what he was doing?

Here we have a man who is very intelligent, very successful—who has bought into certain ideas that lead him to some incredibly dark places. They led him to hurt people. That’s one of the most disturbing things about this story.

Q: Why did you choose to tell this story from the vantage point of Gosnell’s former patients, his family, and the investigating officials?

A: The making of this film was a very evolutionary process. We knew from the outset we had to tell it from the vantage point of some of his patients—who were some of the first people we found and interviewed for the film.

We also had this incredible document, the grand jury report, that so clearly laid out the case. After reading it, we thought it would be amazing to be able to interview the investigating officials—the crime scene investigators and the narcotics officer who broke the case. But when we started the film in 2011, there was a gag order on the case so no one involved was allowed to talk about it.

Instead, we started by interviewing former patients, people who had known Gosnell, neighbors, and some reporters. After the trial, we had the incredible opportunity to finally do those interviews with those police officers and with the crime scene detectives—all those really powerful interviews.

Q: As you’ve researched the abortion industry more broadly, do you see the practices of Gosnell’s clinic as the exception or the rule?

A: I don’t believe that Kermit Gosnell is an outlier in the abortion industry. If you look at the amount of money he made doing what he was doing, there’s no way that he’s the only guy doing it.

In the film, we also look at another clinic that also had some really dangerous practices going on in Delaware. The similarities between this Delaware case and Gosnell are striking as far as the Delaware Department of State not responding to complaints, just like the Pennsylvania Department of State failed to respond. Just incredibly similar.

Now, are all other clinics as filthy and unsanitary as Dr. Gosnell’s clinic? I don’t think that is an accurate statement either. But it would be naïve to say there are no others like Kermit Gosnell, who was making a significant profit providing abortion services.

Q: Tell us more about the Planned Parenthood of Delaware story. Why did you include perspectives of pro-choice women on the practices of abortion clinics?

A: Right in the middle of our documentary production, this whistleblower story breaks in Delaware and we realized we had to go out there and tell this story too.

It was important to include the perspectives of pro-choice nurses because what we found and what they shared was powerful. You don’t have to be pro-life to stand up and say, ‘What’s happening here is wrong.’

Even when we disagree on abortion, we should at least agree that women who go into these abortion clinics should expect some level of safe treatment for themselves. It’s mind-blowing and unfathomable to me how people who claim to be pro-woman can be against any sort of regulations.

To the people who are so vehemently pro-choice, I’d say, ‘Look at what happened at Planned Parenthood of Delaware and at Gosnell’s clinic, and what is happening elsewhere. Why can’t you at least say this is wrong, and we have to put a stop to that?’

Q: As a filmmaker who happens to be a Christian, how do you address fellow believers who choose not to be aware or speak up for the most vulnerable in our society?

A: I would encourage you to look at where Jesus said: “Do for others as you would want them to do for you.” When you look at abortion, if you were a potential victim, how would you want others to treat you?

Turning a blind eye is not an option for Christians. We have to look at this. We have to ask, ‘What am I called to do as a Christian? How am I called to stand and speak up?’ I know it makes us so uncomfortable, but we have to address this issue. (For more from the author of “Only Miles From Democrat Convention, Kermit Gosnell’s Clinic Brings Abortion Industry Horrors to Forefront” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6905464604_c4a082dbf9_b (1)

Alaska Supreme Court Strikes Down Parental Notice on Abortions

In split decision, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved law that required at least one parent to be notified before an abortion practitioner could perform an abortion on a minor girl. The law provided an option for a judge to bypass the notification requirement in special circumstances.

Initially approved in 2010 when Alaska became the first state to pass a parental notification law through a citizen-led initiative, the measure was challenged in the Alaska Supreme Court by Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the nation.

The law passed comfortably in 2010 by a 56 to 43 percent margin.

The achievement was a long sought and welcome victory, particularly for parents and many Catholics who collected petition signatures, waved signs on street corners and prayed to ensure the protection of parental rights. The Catholic Church recognizes the relationship between parent and child as sacred — and not one to be broken by others, including abortion practitioners.

In 2012 Anchorage Superior Court Judge John Suddock upheld major portions of the law, concluding that “minors may be pleasantly surprised when underestimated parents support, comfort and affirm them. Or a teen might overlook available resources. Her parents might help raise the child, and so make college or military service feasible. Parental notification undoubtedly can open doors to unconsidered options for an otherwise isolated young woman.”

Since the law took effect, the number of abortions to girls age 17 and younger had seen a dramatic drop. In 2010, before the law took effect, there were 113 abortions to girls under 17. After the law took effect there were only 87 abortions to girls under 17 in 2011 and the state saw a record low number of reported abortions last year. According to the state’s Bureau of Vital Statistics 1,334 abortions were performed in 2015, the fewest since 2003 when Alaska began recording data.

In striking down the parental consent law, then Chief Justice Dana Fabe was joined by justices Daniel Winfree, Peter Maasen and Joel Bolger. Justice Craig Stowers dissented.

Stowers noted that the parental consent law had “One obvious purpose” and that was “to provide the minor’s parents the opportunity to discuss with their daughter the potential effects of and alternatives to abortion. This is beyond doubt a legitimate interest and right that the State and the parents possess.”

Stowers criticized his colleagues for failing to uphold basic parental rights saying the ruling “trivializes and makes this right of no effect.”

In writing the majority opinion, Winfree claimed that the law unjustifiably treated minors differently when they sought an abortion as opposed to when they decided to keep their babies. By requiring abortion doctors to notify parents that their daughter was to undergo an abortion but not requiring parents to be notified when their daughter chose to keep the baby was seen as a violation of equal protection under the law, Winfree argued.

“Our response — again — is that the Notification Law’s problem is not with wording, but rather with the lack of an acceptable justification for discriminating between pregnant minors based on how they exercise their fundamental privacy right to reproductive choice,” Winfree claimed. “The equal protection clause guarantees that the State may not discriminate between individuals with respect to a fundamental right unless a compelling governmental interest justifies the discrimination.”

But Stowers had strong words for the court’s rational, saying that the same court had previously stated in a 2007 striking down parental consent that a parental notification law could pass constitutional muster because it would be a less restrictive way to further the state’s interests.

By striking down the parental notification law Stowers said the court has indicated that “no parental notification law recognizing parents’ fundamental legal rights to notification of, much less meaningful involvement in, their minor daughters’ decisions to have abortions will be upheld by this court under its strained jurisprudence defining minors’ rights to equal protection.” (For more from the author of “Alaska Supreme Court Strikes Down Parental Notice on Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Difference Between Privacy Rights in Abortion and Same-Sex Locker Rooms Cases

When most Americans consider the right to privacy they think about the privacy they enjoy in their homes and person. They don’t think about killing unborn children in the womb.

But that is not true of liberal activists. To them, the right to privacy is all about abortion because seemingly everything is about abortion on demand: a non-negotiable doctrine of the secular-political faith.

So it comes as no surprise that ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser sees Alliance Defending Freedom’s simultaneous defense of young boys’ and girls’ right to privacy in school showers and locker rooms and strong and unwavering opposition to abortion as hypocritical.

But he misses the mark completely.

The right to privacy that protects young boys and girls from being forced to shower and change in front of members of the opposite sex is not based on the left’s tortured view of “privacy” that was created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that the “right” invented in Roe to kill children in the womb was “heavy handed judicial activism.” Roe is a legal disgrace that ADF has and will tirelessly fight to overturn.

The privacy claim ADF asserts—the right to privacy in one’s unclothed or partially unclothed body—is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions. Courts have said that this is the right test for protection under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Roe obviously fails that test because, at the time of the court’s decision, there was not even a whiff of historical evidence that killing unborn children was an accepted, deeply rooted practice in the United States. Any look at history shows the opposite was true.

In stark contrast, the privacy right ADF defends easily meets the “deeply rooted” test under the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence. It is indisputable that citizens have a right to privacy that protects them not just in their homes, but also from government-compelled exposure of their unclothed bodies to persons of the opposite sex.

As ADF explains in its Illinois lawsuit challenging the federal government’s gender identity mandates (read paragraphs 359-387), this right is a basic and essential aspect of personal liberty that has historically been protected in American law and society.

As Ginsburg has said, Roe was an act of political will—outcome-based jurisprudence, pure and simple. And its notion of “privacy” involves one person exterminating another person for convenience. How does that have anything to do with “privacy,” again?

But ADF’s locker room privacy argument truly protects the person—barring the exposure of one’s unclothed body against one’s will—a right grounded in basic aspects of human liberty and dignity that any government ought to protect.

So the answer to Millhiser’s “hypocrite” charge? Easy: Vindicating the long-established, much-cherished, historically-based privacy right of boys and girls, who would be scared, scarred, humiliated, and degraded by government policies that force them to change clothes in the presence of the opposite sex on a daily basis at school, lends not one whit of support to the “right” to abortion concocted in Roe. Simply put, the privacy claims in abortion and locker room cases are apples and oranges.

In reality, it is the left that is struggling with consistency problems here. Its (mistaken) position that locker room privacy arguments are based on the same privacy right invented in Roe raises an obvious question: How can Roe protect the horrific practice of killing unborn children but not protect something as basic, elementary, and historically as grounded as shielding one’s unclothed body from the view of opposite-sex strangers?

And what of the left’s newest invented “right,” the right to be free from governmental policies that harm one’s “dignity” (see Obergefell v. Hodges). How can government policies that force young girls and boys to expose their partially or fully unclothed bodies to opposite sex peers not violate this newly discovered right?

If I’ve learned one thing over the years, it’s that when the left cries “hypocrite,” it’s only to deflect attention away from the fact that it has nothing meaningful to say. And in this instance it serves one further purpose: to avoid answering for its own hypocrisy. (For more from the author of “The Difference Between Privacy Rights in Abortion and Same-Sex Locker Rooms Cases” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

89084976_1b6e3d4387_b (2)

‘No American Should Be Forced to Participate in Abortion,’ Says Pastor Following Pro-Life Vote

Seated in the House gallery, one man watched the vote on the Conscience Protection Act with all the intensity of a general going into war.

On July 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill, which intended to protect the rights of health care providers, churches, and other groups that object to participating in abortion.

Jim Garlow, father of eight children and pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, California, sat with his wife and a dozen congregants who prayed and discussed events unfolding on the House floor. While others visit the nation’s capital city for summer vacation, this team came with purpose.

Nearly two years ago, Garlow was thrust into a battle with the state of California when his church objected to a new state mandate involving abortion. Since then, he has found that pro-choice bias in state and federal government is no casual affair.

“They are ruthless,” Garlow says.

Yet his church refuses to bow to the state. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, its lawsuit against California is ongoing.

In an interview with Bound4LIFE—a faith-based, pro-life organization—following the vote, Garlow discusses how he testified before Congress, his personal connection to life issues, and the covert strategy he sees at work in politics today.

Bound4LIFE: What recent events in California led your church to file a lawsuit against the state to defend your pro-life convictions?

Garlow: On August 22, 2014, some nameless, faceless bureaucrat at the Department of Managed Health Care in Sacramento made a decision by fiat: that every insurance provider in the state of California had to include elective abortion in our plans.

I found out about that decision 60 days later. An attorney who assists us at Skyline Church said, ‘You’re now covering abortions in your insurance.’ I said, ‘There’s no way.’ ‘No, you are.’ ‘Surely not—we would’ve been notified or something! We would’ve seen this in the media?’ I asked our team to follow-up about it and that attorney was right. We were being forced to pay for abortions, and in fact everyone in California is.

We began to ask what we could do—what is our legal recourse? There were many conference calls. We appealed directly to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services at the time. She stalled our inquiry forever and did nothing. HHS would not enforce the law as written, which protects our rights.

A number of churches, hospitals, as well as Christian universities, both evangelical and Catholic, filed a complaint against the federal government. On June 22, a federal agency dismissed that coalition complaint. Our church filed a separate lawsuit against the state of California in a federal court, which is currently ongoing.

Bound4LIFE: Are there specific policies already enacted that protect medical professionals—or any citizens—who do not want to be involved in abortion?

Garlow: If you’re an OB-GYN doctor or a nurse, and you refuse to perform an abortion, there are several federal statutes that protect you. The Hyde Amendment is the most well-known, prohibiting federal funding of abortion. There’s the Church Amendments—not named for “church,” like a congregation; it refers to Frank Church, former senator from Idaho.

There’s also the Coats-Snowe Amendment, named for Dan Coats and Olympia Snowe. They are two people on opposite sides of the abortion issue, but they agreed that people should not be coerced to be involved in abortion.

But the Weldon Amendment, named after Congressman Dave Weldon who is a medical doctor, is the most relevant. The Obama administration has twisted the Weldon Amendment in such a way that, if any medical professional objected to providing abortions, they can be fired with no right to litigation.

It’s bizarre. When the law is violated, people always have the right to sue—but now none of these people could. On top of that, churches are also coerced to cover abortions.

I testified this past Friday before the Energy and Commerce Committee—their subcommittee on Health, chaired by Congressman Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania. I flew home, preached in San Diego, then flew back here Monday to speak to congressional staff about this issue—60 key people influencing their bosses, who are members of Congress.

We’ve been in meetings one after another with congressmen, specifically bringing up the Conscience Protection Act and how it helps correct these issues. I also have a new book called ‘Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today’s Tough Issues;’ a team from Skyline Church came as volunteers and hand-delivered copies to all 535 members of Congress. They believe the message is that important.

Bound4LIFE: Now the vote just ended on this bill, how does it correct the issue of government discrimination against medical providers and churches like yours?

Garlow: We had a victory moments ago, when the Conscience Protection Act passed by a bipartisan majority vote of 245-182 in the U.S. House. Our team was seated in the House gallery praying. Now it will proceed to the U.S. Senate, where it will hopefully be voted on this fall.

This week, I’ve been sitting with attorneys who’ve been using all this legalese—some of which I did not follow, quite frankly. Let me approach the specifics in layman’s terms. This bill tightens the screws down on these amendments already enacted. It gets rid of this notion that you cannot sue if you’re coerced into providing an abortion. That’s the quick and easy way of understanding it.

This bill would take out the language where they twisted the Weldon Amendment to mean something different. The Obama administration released a statement last night saying the president would most certainly veto this bill if it arrives at his desk because it would ‘limit women’s health care.’

They are completely ignoring the reality of the shift. When they push for certain policies, the left at first says, ‘Let us do this—you’ve just got to tolerate it.’ Then next they say, ‘You’ve got to affirm it.’ And finally they say, ‘No, you’ve got to participate in this activity.’ In this case, they want us to participate in the killing.

They attempt these three levels every time: toleration, affirmation, participation. They are ruthless. They have no respect for the First Amendment rights of the Constitution.

Bound4LIFE: For someone who does not hold pro-life convictions, why should they support this bill?

Garlow: Tonight, we had three Democratic members join the majority in voting for this bill. Now the Democratic Party, according to its platform, is unashamedly pro-choice—I would call it pro-abortion, to be honest.

Many leaders mentioned earlier who wrote these amendments, such as Senator Frank Church, were Democrats who said that a person’s conscience should not be violated. There’s been a fair amount of bipartisan support for conscience rights, because this policy is not fundamentally about the issue of abortion.

Rather, it addresses: Is the First Amendment going to be respected? That question is on two levels. On one level, there are those of us who uphold the sanctity of life based on biblical reasons—we can point to chapter and verse, as well as church doctrine.

On a second level, there are atheists who object to abortion and they don’t have to give a theological reason for that. It’s a matter of conscience for them, period. No one should be forced to do something they find offensive.

This was emphasized strongly in the Energy and Commerce subcommittee forum. Two of us testifying were pastors, while two others were conscientious objectors whose stand for life was not tied to theological reasons. No American should be forced to participate in abortion.

Bound4LIFE: You noted your role as a pastor. Sometimes speaking of the value of every life seems distant or political to people. How does Skyline Church live out your pro-life beliefs?

Garlow: It concerns me that we live in a culture where people wonder, ‘Why should we care about a pro-life position?’ How ludicrous is that! The average person uses the word ‘abortion’ with far too much ease. When I was in front of the congressional committee, I said, ‘Let’s call it what it is: Abortion is dismembering a human being, ripping them to shreds. Innocent blood is flowing in the streets of our cities.’

At Skyline Church, we are activists. We hold accountable those in public life. We also adopt babies—I’ve adopted four myself. One of my adopted children is an adult now, who has adopted children. My wife passed away a number of years ago and I remarried, then I had stepchildren; one of my stepchildren is adopted.

My daughter-in-law, whom I claim as my own, runs an adoption ministry. So she’s standing for life full time on the frontlines. Some of our congregation goes out to abortion centers for the purpose of praying and reaching out in compassion. When I pastored in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I was heavily involved on that important front.

Bound4LIFE: You mention Texas, which was at the center of a recent Supreme Court decision seen as a setback for the pro-life movement. Do you have hope as a pro-life pastor?

Garlow: I do have hope. The pro-life movement is very encouraging to me as a pastor. How we’re seeing the next generation take a stand against abortion is thrilling.

I have a cautious optimism, built on whether this nation has a critical mass of people who are willing to repent of sin, hold leaders accountable, and refuse to tolerate the kind of actions we’ve seen going on. We have tough battles here, but they are winnable to the extent that we will follow the word of God. (For more from the author of “‘No American Should Be Forced to Participate in Abortion,’ Says Pastor Following Pro-Life Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Republicans Accuse Democrats of ‘Privately’ Obstructing Probe of Fetal Tissue Market

Republicans on a special House panel investigating the sale and transfer of body parts and other tissue from aborted babies are accusing Democrats of stonewalling efforts to present Congress with an accurate picture.

Democrats, they say, are encouraging abortion clinics and for-profit companies not to comply with congressional subpoenas and other requests for documents, making it difficult to complete their investigation.

“The minority privately attempted to obstruct the panel’s fact-finding mission,” Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said of her Democrat counterparts during a press conference Thursday on a 94-page interim update on the panel’s progress.

Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., a panel member, said the abortion industry “has been less than cooperative, and I think we have to ask ourselves why,” adding:

If they’re proud of this industry, if there’s nothing to hide, if they think this is moral and meets the laws of America, open up. Give us the documents we asked for.

The Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives was established last October following a series of undercover videos created by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress. Those hidden-camera videos, released last summer, depicted officials at Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing the amounts they could charge in selling organs and other body parts from aborted babies.
Profiting from the sale of fetal tissue is against federal law.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has denied those allegations, and state investigations so far have cleared the nation’s largest abortion provider of any wrongdoing.

But since then, the abortion industry has faced a new wave of allegations surrounding the fetal tissue market, which, according to federal law, is supposed to operate on a nonprofit, donation-based model.

On Thursday, Blackburn and other Republicans leading the House select panel issued the scathing interim report raising legal and ethical questions about the abortion industry. The report suggests that, motivated by a need for revenue, abortion clinics and middleman procurement companies engaged in regulatory shortcuts that violate federal law and regulations.

Middleman procurement companies are businesses that work with abortion clinics to obtain body parts and other tissue from aborted babies and provide them to universities, institutions, or other organizations for research.

Blackburn said:

We have uncovered evidence that some abortion providers have altered abortion procedures in a manner that substitutes what is best for the patient with a financial benefit for both the abortion clinic and the procurement organization. The motive for profit sullies the integrity of our nation’s celebrated history of voluntary organ donation.

Federal law prohibits doctors from altering the abortion procedure to obtain tissue. Federal law also prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue.

However, it is legal to provide payment and accept payment to cover reasonable costs for “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

The select panel’s ranking member, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., called the GOP members’ allegations in the report false, and said the panel should be disbanded.

“Never before have I witnessed such a disconnect between allegations and the facts,” Schakowsky said in a prepared statement. “Their interim report, which Democrats learned about through a press advisory, proves that this panel needs to be disbanded now, before more lives are put at risk.”

By requesting the names of specific doctors, researchers, and clinic employees, Schakowsky and other Democrats say, Republicans are endangering their lives. They point to the attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs.

In May, Democrats issued their own update on the panel’s progress, calling Republican allegations of noncompliance “false.” They wrote:

Despite the chair’s false public claims of widespread noncompliance, thousands of pages of documents have been submitted to the panel by universities, clinics, and companies. These materials indicate that costs related to fetal tissue donation remain consistent with the Government Accountability Office’s reporting from 16 years ago and provide no evidence of the unlawful sale of fetal tissue.

The select panel includes eight Republicans and six Democrats.

The initial goal of the panel’s investigation was to figure out whether abortion clinics and other companies profit from the sale of fetal tissue. In the course of obtaining documents, Republicans say, they learned that abortion clinics and middleman companies also may have violated other laws and regulations that apply to the abortion industry.

To provide Congress with a complete picture, panel investigators say Democrats must stop encouraging abortion clinics and middleman procurement companies to refuse to turn over accounting and banking records critical to the investigation.

“At every turn, the minority has urged that the panel’s requests for information be ignored and even urged noncompliance with congressional subpoenas,” Page 5 of the interim report reads. The report continues:

At the behest of the minority, many individuals who have received congressional subpoenas have heavily redacted critical information, and some have refused to comply at all. Still others have communicated in writing that they have relied upon minority memoranda to support their noncompliance. Information is a critical tool for congressional deliberation, so in the coming months, the panel will undertake initiatives to gain compliance with its subpoenas.

“Democrats did not give anyone a memorandum urging noncompliance and we told this to Republicans when they asked,” a spokeswoman for panel Democrats told The Daily Signal in response to these allegations, adding:

Democratic staff prepared a memo for our members on the status of the investigation which made clear that we have uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing and highlighted the Republicans’ partisan abuses. That memo is available on our website. Republicans must be really struggling if they have to resort to peddling falsehoods about Democrats and a simple status memo can put the brakes on their investigation. Just like the many allegations Republicans have made throughout this so-called investigation, this one has no basis in fact.

In their report, Republicans detail specific examples where they say middleman companies and other entities refused to cooperate with Congress’ investigation.

On Feb. 12, the panel issued a subpoena to StemExpress demanding the production of all banking and accounting records relating to fetal tissue, among other documents. According to the panel’s report, StemExpress produced only accounting summaries created by its lawyers.

On March 29, the panel issued a second subpoena to StemExpress and its founder, Cate Dyer, again requesting the same transaction information, as well as information on the company’s financial director.

“Without enforcing the subpoenas to StemExpress and Ms. Dyer, the panel will be unable to determine whether StemExpress complied with or violated [federal law],” the report states.

The Daily Signal emailed StemExpress, but the company would not comment on the record.

The panel documented what it calls similar instances of noncompliance involving Southwestern Women’s Options (an abortion clinic located in Albuquerque, New Mexico), the University of New Mexico (a research institute), and Advanced Bioscience Resources (a middleman procurement nonprofit).

An attorney for Advanced Bioscience Resources told investigators the organization does not have detailed records of its fees and expenses.

Instead, investigators said, Advanced Bioscience Resources gave the panel a “single sheet of financial information, and a one-page document, apparently generated using a calculator.”

“It is unclear how these documents were created or by whom,” the report states.

The Daily Signal contacted Advanced Bioscience Resources, Southwestern Women’s Options, and the University of New Mexico for comment, but those entities have not yet responded.

Without obtaining these accounting documents, Republicans say, they’ll be unable to meet their Dec. 31 deadline to complete the investigation.

“Information is a critical tool for congressional deliberation, so in the coming months, the panel will undertake initiatives to gain compliance with its subpoenas,” Blackburn and her fellow Republicans warn in the interim report.

Democrats maintain that if these companies and organizations are forced to hand over the information demanded, lives could be at risk.

“Republicans have offered no legitimate reason for continuing this investigation, which is putting lives, life-saving research, health care at risk, and wasting taxpayer dollars,” the panel’s Democrats wrote in their May report. (For more from the author of “Republicans Accuse Democrats of ‘Privately’ Obstructing Probe of Fetal Tissue Market” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5019846884_1c47ebb506_b (2)

PA Senate Committee Approves Bill Banning Abortion After 20 Weeks

A Pennsylvania Senate judiciary committee passed a bill Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation.

The bill passed the committee in a 9-5 vote, reports Philadelphia magazine. All Republicans on the committee voted for it, while all the Democrats voted against it. The bill already passed the House with a 132-65 vote.

HB 1948 would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, unless the woman’s life is in danger or the doctor believes that major bodily harm will come to the woman if an abortion is not performed.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf stated that he would veto the bill should it reach his desk.

“This legislation would be a step backwards for women and for Pennsylvania,” Wolf said. “I urge the Senate to reject this bill. If this legislation reaches my desk, I will veto it. This is a bad bill for Pennsylvania and we cannot afford to allow it to go forward.”

The bill also restricts abortions performed on married women. A married women can only receive an abortion if she can provide a written statement proving her husband is aware of the procedure. If a married woman proves that her husband is not the father of the child, or she cannot find her husband or she has been a victim of sexual assault, then she can get an abortion.

The bill also bans dismemberment abortions, in which the doctor pulls the unborn baby limb from limb out of the womb using a forceps or scissors.

“In a dismemberment abortion, fully-formed babies are brutally torn apart limb from limb,” Maria Gallagher, legislative director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, told LifeSiteNews.

“In the state that’s leading the way for dramatic, life-preserving surgeries for the smallest lives, we’re going to end the inhumane practice of dismemberment abortions, which tears a living human being to pieces. We can do better than that, and Pennsylvania’s women and girls deserve better,” Representative Kathy Rapp,the bill’s sponsor, said in a video message. (For more from the author of “PA Senate Committee Approves Bill Banning Abortion After 20 Weeks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Fight for Our Lives: How to Beat SCOTUS on Abortion

No one should underestimate just how severe the loss was in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Monday’s appalling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Five members of the Court, over the strenuous dissents of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, didn’t just create a new and far stricter standard for abortion regulations. They threw out the minimal standards that Texas had imposed on abortion clinics to improve their quality and cleanliness and reduce the health risks of women undergoing abortions.

The question now is whether states are going to be able to do anything to get around this abysmal ruling and implement regulations to prevent what the Texas legislature was trying to make sure would not happen in Texas: a repeat of the horrific conditions in the Gosnell abortion clinic in Philadelphia, which led to the “irreparable” injury (and even the death) of women and the murder of children born alive.

To answer that, one must first understand just how extreme this decision was. Without explicitly saying so, the Court rejected its own precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that allows a state to act “where it has a rational basis” to regulate abortion “in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession” and without placing an undue burden on women. Now, apparently, state legislators will no longer be given deference. They will have to prove to judges that such regulations are absolutely necessary. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent, the five-member majority has transformed the applicable test “to something much more akin to strict scrutiny,” which is the highest and strictest form of judicial review the Court applies.

The Texas legislature, which has the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine in the state (something outside the purview of the federal government) had passed two common-sense reforms: requiring abortion clinics to meet the minimum health and safety standards that other ambulatory surgical centers have to meet, and requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic. The majority held that these requirements placed an “undue burden” on abortion clinics, and were therefore unconstitutional.

The majority’s reasoning was often bizarre and ignored evidence produced in the case. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer, who almost always seems in favor of more government regulation, acknowledged the “terrible” behavior at the Gosnell clinic. But then he claimed that there was “no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior” because that is unlikely to change “determined wrongdoers.” Of course, under that analysis, one could dismiss the usefulness of almost any law or regulation that prohibits wrongful behavior.

Breyer added that there was no evidence that the new Texas requirements would be “more effective” than prior law, ignoring evidence that the plaintiff in the case, Whole Women’s Health, had appalling conditions at its clinic, including “the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments.” The grand jury report on the Gosnell clinic also described it as a “filthy space” with “unsanitary instruments.” Given the fact that Whole Women’s Health was claiming the new law would force it to shut down, it seems obvious that Texas’s “extra layer of regulation” would, in fact, have a salutatory effect – preventing the operation of a dirty clinic with all of the medical risks that entails.

Similarly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to claim that abortions are completely safe for women and almost completely risk free, ignoring evidence that more than 200 women a year end up in hospitals in the state because of complications from both surgical and chemical abortions.

On the requirement of admitting privileges, which the majority also said was an undue (and unnecessary) burden, the justices ignored a crucial fact pointed out by Texas: that before it changed its mind, in 2000 the National Abortion Federation itself had recommended that doctors have admitting privileges. Otherwise, patients experiencing post-abortion complications arrive at a hospital with no medical records, no history and no information about the procedure performed by the abortion doctor. That can slow down and degrade the quality and effectiveness of any subsequent medical treatment.

The bottom line is that a majority of the Court – five lawyers with absolutely no medical experience or education – have set themselves to be the judge of what is appropriate medical care. Or as Justice Thomas said in his dissent, they have appointed themselves as “the country’s ex-officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.”

One of the most embarrassing aspects of this case, ignored by all of the media analysts and supporters of abortion, is what appalling misers some of these abortion organizations are when it comes to the patients they treat. The crux of their case was a claim that they could not afford to meet the minimum medical standards required by Texas and a number of other states. Yet Planned Parenthood’s 2014-2015 annual report shows that Big Abortion is Big Business. Planned Parenthood had $1.3 billion in revenue, including government revenue of $553.7 million, and lists revenue in excess of expenses (i.e., profit) of $58.8 million in 2015, and $127.1 million in 2014. And yet supposedly the abortion industry can’t afford to improve medical conditions for its patients to increase their health and safety.

The key to getting around these five justices is for states to tailor their medical regulations to apply generally, and not just to abortion clinics. In other words, apply stricter medical standards to all clinics that provide particular types of medical services – such as any invasive surgical medical practices or chemical treatments that can cause substantial potential reactions that may require hospitalization. Making such regulations generally applicable will undermine the under inclusiveness critique that Ginsburg made when she claimed that many other medical procedures that “are far more dangerous to patients” are not subject to the Texas requirements.

Legislatures will have to do a much better job beefing up the legislative record when considering any such regulation. They are going to have show that regulations are “necessary” to reduce risk and provide evidence of tangible medical benefits to patients.

That will then put the burden on challengers – and the five justices who issued this terrible decision – to explain and justify why abortion practices should be somehow exempted from the usual practices required for other medical procedures. They must be put in the indefensible position of arguing that substandard medical care for women is constitutionally justified for abortion.

It may still be difficult for states to prevail. But such broader regulations will be tougher for the justices to circumvent. And it will have the effect of generally raising the quality of all medical care provided in a state. (For more from the author of “The Fight for Our Lives: How to Beat SCOTUS on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


‘Pro-Life’ GOP Ups the Budget for International Abortions

For all the talk about partisanship in Washington, 90 percent of legislative initiatives are actually bipartisan, especially the bills that affect the funding of critical policies. The latest example is the Senate Appropriations Committee, controlled by Republicans, which just passed the annual State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill increasing funding for abortions internationally.

To begin with, this $52.8 billion spending bill is full of billions of dollars in foreign aid, food aid, security aid, and all sorts of AID for wasteful programs of dubious importance, all too often, for enemy nations and entities. This is the bill that funds the primary government department that deals with diplomacy in addition to extra funding for “overseas contingency operations.” I could think of dozens of germane amendments Republican members, with their simple majority on the committee, could have added to the underlying bill that would have actually addressed serious threats. For example, amendments blocking funding for the Palestinians, the Iran deal, and Syrian rebels.

They could have defunded Obama’s refugee surge center established by the State Department and could have placed a number of restrictions on State Department activity with refugee resettlement, as that is the department that first deals with refugee policy in terms of initially admitting them to the country. Republicans could have also placed restrictions on Obama promoting his homosexual and transgender agenda, ironically, on moderate Muslim regimes that fight the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic terrorists who throw gay people off buildings.

Yet, not a single amendment combating a single Obama foreign policy was added to the bill from this panel of very weak Republicans. What did they add instead? Here is a summary from Congressional Quarterly (subscription required):

An adopted amendment from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., increases by $124 million funding for direct support to foreign countries for family planning activities, raising the overall amount to $585 million.

The Shaheen measure, which was adopted by a 17-13 vote, also provides $37.5 million in funding to the U.N. Population Fund where none had been provided in the underlying bill. The amendment lastly strips from the legislation Republican language reinstating the so-called Mexico City policy, which forbids any U.S. dollars going to a foreign NGO that provides information about or performs abortions.

Senate appropriators also adopted by voice vote an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-O.R., to provide $500 million to the U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund where the base bill would have denied any funding. [emphasis added]

So there were enough votes on the GOP-majority-controlled committee to add more funding for abortions and funding for the UN’s global warming scam. Got that? Not only are Republicans incapable and unwilling to block taxpayer funding for abortions in American, they can’t even stop funding for abortions on an international scope, even in their own spending bills. Remember, without the Mexico City policy in place, the $585 million in international family planning funds will be used for abortions, not that we should be funding those programs anyway.

There is one more important amendment that passed during committee markup. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) proposed an amendment authorizing states and localities to divest from entities that participate in the boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Unfortunately, Senator Kirk felt a need to attach language making it clear that our government still delegitimizes Israel’s retention of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. He added that “nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the established policy of the United States concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation.” Why was this added?

Some might say Kirk wanted to keep this a bipartisan endeavor and wanted to appease Democrats by tossing in the pro-Palestinian nonsense. But even with this language, 9 of the 14 Democrats voted against the anti-BDS provision. Given that Republicans have a majority on the committee, why not just draw a bold contrast with Democrats and stand for moral clarity? Just today, a young Palestinian teenager crept into a Jewish town in Judea a stabbed to death a 13-year-old girl in her bed while she was sleeping.

The notion that there is any moral equivalence between Jews building homes in their homeland that they won back in a defensive war (after it was illegally occupied by Jordan) and brutal terrorists illegally occupying land that was never given to them, is reprehensible. The only binding resolution of international law that has never been countermanded to this day is the July 1922 Mandate for Palestine, which calls for the creation of a Jewish national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan River. Once the League of Nations was disbanded and the United Nations took its place, they agreed to maintain all agreements and not “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. [Article 80, UN Charter] The Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations was the last legally binding document. In Article 5 of the Mandate it explicitly states “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

The Arab squatters living in that region have no right to a state in that land, much less a right to murder those who build homes in the rightful territory of their state duly adopted by international law. Why couldn’t Republicans stand on bold colors and defund the Palestinian government altogether, which is responsible for inciting the very sort of jihad that took place this morning? How could Republicans fund an Islamic supremacist government for even one more day? We as may as well send $500 million a year to Raqqa to bolster the Islamic State, albeit attach a provision saying no funds can be used for terrorism!

Whether it’s abortion, global warming, Islamic refugee resettlement, or Islamic terror there is no moral clarity within the ranks of either party. Who needs Democrats when Republicans will validate and consummate all of their policies anyway? (For more from the author of “‘Pro-Life’ GOP Ups the Budget for International Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned_Parenthood_in_St._Paul (2)

Whole Woman’s Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence

Monday’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Texas demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is committed to uphold the right to abortion, no matter what.

Even though the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade had determined that a state has a “legitimate interest” in seeing that an abortion “is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient,” those have proved to be just empty words. In a 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court crafted an “undue burden” test to determine whether health restrictions have the “purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” As with all such balancing tests invented by the Court, this test has allowed the justices to reach whatever decision they personally prefer. In this case, the personal preferences of the justices was, again, revealed to be overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

The Texas law at question in this case imposed two restrictions on abortion providers: first, that the physician-abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility, and second, that the abortion facility meet at least the “minimum standards … for ambulatory surgical centers” in Texas. The Court swept aside all of the evidence as to the danger of abortion for the women involved and focused only on the evidence offered by pro-abortion physicians and medical groups. As a result, abortion was declared “much safer, in terms of minor and serious complications, than many common medical procedures not subject to such intense regulation and scrutiny.”

The rationalizing principle here is that the law that applies to abortion cases is very different from the law the court applies when it addresses less favored rights.

We filed an amicus curiae brief in this case on behalf of Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, and Southwest Prophecy Ministries, which set out the fraudulent nature of abortion jurisprudence, contrasting that with a dozen Scripture verses – laying out the view of our Creator drawn from the Holy Bible. We argued that “[t]he Roe v. Wade decision can only be understood as being grounded jointly on (i) the atextual notion of ‘privacy’ … and (ii) the judicially invented doctrine of substantive due process.” Even though the majority paid no heed to our arguments, or the arguments of the other pro-life briefs, one of the two dissenting opinions expounded on how lawless Supreme Court abortion decisions have become.

The Thomas Dissent

Indeed, in what may go down as his best dissent ever, Justice Thomas began with Justice Scalia’s famous observation in his 2000 dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart about the fraudulent nature of Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence: “the Court’s troubling tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.” Justice Thomas ripped the majority opinion from one end to the other, explaining why it is corrupt, mangling even the subjective “undue burden” test of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Accusing the Court of further perpetuating a “habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights – especially the putative right to abortion,” Justice Thomas concluded: “Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.” Concluding with a frontal assault on balancing tests, Justice Thomas warned: “As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat[.] … If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result.”

This brilliant dissent should be required reading for every law school student, who is increasingly unexposed to reasoning from fixed principles and instead trained in the techniques of judicial balancing – as if the latter were all that law is about. Justice Thomas took his constitutional law lesson back to the beginnings of where the Court’s jurisprudence went astray – discussing, inter alia, the famous Footnote 4 of the Court’s 1938 decision in United States v. Carolene Products as an excuse to issue decisions that favored unenumerated rights, setting the Court at large.

Justice Thomas pulled no punches, observing:

The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not – and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate[.]

In his concluding paragraph, Justice Thomas returned to Justice Scalia, observing that “[t]he majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is ‘a regrettable concession of defeat – an acknowledgment that we have passed the point where “law,” properly speaking, has any further application.'” Brilliant. Let us hope that this clear statement of judicial error will constitute a turning point, as the curtain is ripped back on the techniques of judicial fiat. 25Justice Scalia would have been pleased.

The Breyer Majority Opinion

Justice Breyer’s entire legal analysis of the two Texas restrictions, really, is as simple as uttering his conclusion: “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access[.]” Based on that, the Court rules that “each violates the Federal Constitution. Amdt. 14 section 1.” (As they say, the right to an abortion was found hidden between the penumbras and the emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment.)

Making up law as he went, Justice Breyer rejected the Fifth Circuit’s deference to the Texas legislature: “The statement that legislatures, and not courts, must resolve questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this Court’s case law.” There you have it: the Supreme Court usurps not just the exclusive right to determine what is constitutional, but also matters of medical policy.

Justice Ginsburg filed a short concurring opinion relying heavily on the amicus briefs of pro-abortion groups. As with Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg scarcely mentioned the Constitution – but viewed herself as making health care policy for the people of Texas.

Of course, if you ask the wrong question, you invariably get the wrong response. Supreme Court pro-abortion jurisprudence is so well established that the Court never even thinks to reconsider whether there really is a right to an abortion to be found in the Constitution – to say nothing of the right to an abortion at a relatively unregulated abortion mill. Rather, applying their corrupt precedents, Justice Breyer seemed glad to report that in Texas, the number of abortions has run about 15-16 percent of the pregnancy rate – for a total of 60,000-72,000 abortions annually, a number that he did not want to see diminished as a result of the Texas law.

The Court’s final vote was 5-3. Joining Breyer were Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Thus – again – the key pro-abortion vote was provided by Reagan-appointed “Republican” Kennedy. Dissenting were Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. Had Scalia lived, the restrictions on abortion mills would still have been struck, but on a 5-4 vote. If the Republicans in the Senate had confirmed Merrick Garland, undoubtedly the vote would have been 6-3.

Many observers thought this case would be held over until the next term and reargued before a full Court. That would have been true only if Kennedy had not joined the majority. And since Kennedy joined the plurality decision in Casey in 1992, and in the aftermath of decisions like last year’s Obergefell v. Hodges, it seems that there was really no reason to have held out that hope.
The Future of Abortion

This case raises the question of how abortion can be resisted in the future. There is little reason to have confidence that any governor in the country would do his job as a “lesser magistrate” and “interpose” himself to protect unborn children from murder against a murderous Supreme Court. For the future, one of the shortcomings in the Texas legislation that the Supreme Court pointed to was that there were no “explicit legislative findings” as to the benefits of the law. However, there is little reason to believe that the Court would have cared even if there had been such findings. Why should it, given its penchant for advancing the “pro-choice” movement, no matter how Dr. Gosnell and other like him are exploiting desperate young women?

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s embrace of a culture of death, it continues to fall upon the rest of us to speak truth. As just one useful strategy, this is a good time to remember the advice of Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress: when anyone says he is for “a woman’s right to choose,” complete his sentence for him – “to murder her child.” We have the continuous decisions of U.S. Supreme Court over twoscore and three years for establishing that murder of the innocent unborn continues to be protected from state prosecution, or even regulation, by the modernists’ Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Truly, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again uttered lawlessness masquerading as a judicial decision. (This article first appeared in American Thinker. Posted here with the authors’ permission.)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

University_of_Toronto_pro-life_protest_1 (1)

Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Ones Putting Women at Risk

In 1957, at the age of 10, Norma (Nelson) McCorvey robbed a gas station and started on a path that no one would want for their child. Norma’s mother was an alcoholic, and violent, and Norma would spend a lot of time abusing drugs, alcohol and wasting her life.

When Norma became pregnant for the third time after her first child was taken by her mother and her second child was raised by the father, Norma tried to get an illegal abortion. Her doctor explained that it was illegal, and referred her to an adoption lawyer who in turn introduced her to recent law school graduates Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.

The two lawyers, who were plaintiff-shopping for the purposes of changing abortion law in the state of Texas, used Norma as she had been used and abused her entire life. She signed an affidavit without even knowing what it said, and the two lawyers, Coffee and Weddington, took the case to the Supreme Court, eventually overturning state laws that restricted abortion. During the legal battles, Norma’s baby was born and adopted, but the case partially centered around the fact that Jane Roe “wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion ‘performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions’…”

Fast forward to this past week’s Supreme Court decision which determined that the

State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion… is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient… [But that] a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends… and unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.

Note the lie that pro-abortionists have any interest whatsoever in women’s civil rights. This ruling means that abortion advocates have taken 43 years to fight for abortion not performed by a competent, licensed physician “under safe, clinical conditions,” because after all, the main objective is their “right”; the sanitary conditions of the facility places a “substantial obstacle.”

This decision has exposed the Abortion Pigs for who and what they are.

The states that have recently enacted the safe abortion facilities laws will now see their legislation overturned, and all abortion facilities can be truly described as slaughterhouses.

For the good people who are fighting against abortion, this Supreme Court decision only strengthens their argument because it exposes the abortion industry as primarily interested in keeping the industry going regardless of the danger of infection, shock or death of the mother. And pro-lifers ought to take heed: Though the ruling continues abortion mills which have a certain cost/volume/profit standard to stay open, it should be explained, especially to the young, that it means the clinic can perform more and more abortions, now with no recognizable sanitary guidelines and safety to the mother. Any young woman seeking an abortion ought to be informed of the lowest standards their so-called “abortion rights advocates” have fought for.

McCorvey, as she grew older, became a fierce pro-lifer, but after Roe v. Wade, she in fact lived as a kind of celebrity between 1973 and the 1990’s while being active in the pro-abort movement. But in 1992, Norma began working in abortion facilities and in a later affidavit, described a “typical” abortion facility where she worked in 1995, 21 years ago.

One clinic where I worked in 1995 was typical: Light fixtures and plaster falling from the ceiling; rat droppings over the sinks; backed up sinks; and blood splattered on the walls. But, the most distressing room in the facility was the ‘parts room.’ Aborted babies were stored here. There were dead babies and baby parts stacked like cordwood. Some of the babies made it into buckets and others did not, and because of its disgusting features, no one ever cleaned the room. The stench was horrible. Plastic bags full of baby parts that were swimming in blood were tied up, stored in the room and picked up once a week. At another clinic, the dead babies were kept in a big white freezer full of dozens of jars, all full of baby parts, little tiny hands, feet and faces visible through the jars, frozen in blood.

That’s what the Abortion Pigs have fought to continue.

In 2013, the Gosnell trial cast a light upon the standards at his abortion facility, described as, “filthy, wretched and macabre… The smells were just unbearable,” Philadelphia Police Crime Scene Investigator John Taggart said following the trial. “You could tell there was death somewhere.” NBC 10 Philadelphia reported further on the conditions inside Gosnell’s house of horrors.

Stained and tattered, the table still had sanitary paper and stirrups attached. Prosecutors said the table would regularly be used for abortion procedures and that former employees said dried blood would often be caked to the medical equipment.

A garbage disposal taken from the clinic’s break room was set on top of a storage drawer. Taggart said investigators learned the employees would dispose of fetal remains in the sink and use the disposal to move them down the drain. Human bones were found inside the appliance, prosecutors said.

‘They were shoving body parts down the garbage disposal,’ said Taggart. ‘To the point where they plunged it one day and an arm popped out on Lancaster Avenue.’

Filthy, corroded tubing — stained over time by blood and dirt — were left coiled on the floor. Some of the tubing that was used for suction during abortion procedures also doubled as a suction source for patient resuscitation, according to prosecutors.

Again, that is what the Abortion Pigs have fought to maintain, and they won.

With reports that Planned Parenthood clinics were steam-cooking and throwing dead children in landfills; that in Great Britain clinics were using babies as raw material for “waste to energy” programs; that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts in a Goebbels-inspired industry to profit off the “products of conception”; and that facilities don’t have to be regulated like a health-care facility, pro-lifers must continue to remind fellow Americans of the disrespect, or rather, disgust, for human life on the part of the abortion advocates.

The Abortion Pigs, the advocates of this barbaric slaughter of innocents, seem clean and intelligent when they are actually abusing women and murdering children as much as profitability will allow, and now that they are heralding this Supreme Court decision, every pro-lifer has more ammunition to help change the hearts and minds of fellow Americans.

The greatest evil in this nation is the protected status of abortion, and it is important to note that the Abortion Pigs try very hard to “sanitize” the act of abortion, just as they had to Norma, just as they do now by claiming abortion is a woman’s right, which really means that women alone have the right to murder. And as they are giddy with delight that their clinics don’t need to be sanitary, let’s please go ahead and remind everyone that they fought for it to be that way.

The only way to stop the abortion industry’s dominance in America is to change minds and hearts about the horrors of abortion, and the lies told by the Abortion Pigs. Take away their industry and their income, educate young women, and their satanic crusade of slaughter will end. God help us. (For more from the author of “Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Ones Putting Women at Risk” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.