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 yesterday’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.

89084976_1b6e3d4387_b (1)

Supreme Court Takes Abortion Zeal to New Level, Embraces Unregulated Baby Butchery

In the most consequential abortion decision since 1992, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law regulating the public safety of abortion clinics. In a 5-3 decision with Justice Breyer writing for the majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the high court reversed the Fifth Circuit and invalidated Texas’s HB 2, which required abortion clinics to meet the health standards for ambulatory surgical centers and required doctors at the facilities to have admissions privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

After concocting a Fourteenth Amendment right to an abortion at almost any stage out of whole cloth in Roe v.Wade and Casey, the court now holds that any basic, prudent and clearly constitutional state regulation addressing safety concerns at abortion facilities that in any way results in a decrease in the number of abortions performed is “unconstitutional.”

Justice Thomas begins his dissent by noting how the majority on the court tends to bend the rules when one of their favored “rights” is at stake:

To begin, the very existence of this suit is a jurisprudential oddity. Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others. But the Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors. So in this case and many others, the Court has erroneously allowed doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women seeking abortions.

Yet, once a woman has been granted a constitutional right to an abortion, third parties can now sue on her behalf.

Connected to the issue of standing on behalf of others is the issue of access to abortions. The court has made it clear in this decision that the courts, not state legislatures, determine the scientific and medical analysis behind regulating abortion clinics in order to achieve the desired outcome: full access to abortions by any third party provider that desires to operate in the field. Remember, states have plenary power over regulating doctors and medical certifications within their respective states, yet the court made it clear they will step in to invalidate those laws if [even third party] plaintiffs can show that they will lead to a decrease in the number of abortions.

In a dissent that is full of quotes from the late Justice Scalia, Thomas concludes with a quote from his former senior colleague:

Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is “a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.

It is truly shocking how far we have fallen as a Republic. At the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, 36 states and territories had laws on the books banning abortions. Yet, we are told that the Constitution, and even the Fourteenth Amendment as originally conceived, is unconstitutional and preempted by the evolving interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is rooted in nothing but the political imagination of the judges. Now that has transmogrified to a right to operate abortion clinics that have sub-standard health care.

Justice Alito, who authored the main dissent (which was joined by Thomas and Roberts) focused on several other aspects of the court’s tendentious treatment for abortion plaintiffs. The court violated a principle of “res judicata, namely, that a plaintiff who loses in a first case cannot later bring the same case simply because it has now gathered better evidence.” Given that this case was already heard by a trial court and the plaintiffs lost in the Fifth Circuit, opting at the time not to pursue an appeal to SCOTUS, were precluded from bringing the case again after they felt they had more evidence that the Texas law would limit the number of abortions in the state.

Additionally, Alito assailed the majority for not applying the principle of upholding the remaining parts of the Texas law, which were not challenged in the lawsuit, given that the law was written with a proper severability clause. The overarching message of the majority, as observed by Thomas and Alito, was that if the end goal is an abortion right, any and all rules governing judicial proceedings can be vitiated.

Furthermore, while opponents argue that admitting privileges and ASC requirements are just “scams” to limit access to abortion, they would do well to remember that sacrificing women’s health at the altar of “reproductive rights” is the exact same kind of thinking that allowed Kermit Gosnell to continue his horrific practices in Philadelphia for years without scrutiny. Gosnell, who is currently serving a life sentence for three counts of murder and other charges, spent years performing abortions on low-income women of Philadelphia in unsanitary conditions with little emergency access while conducting illegal experiments on women and unborn children.

The notion that such regulations are beyond the scope of state power – even if one were to accede to the phantom individual right to an abortion – is lunacy.

The intellectual dyslexia of the judiciary is breathtaking. States have now been granted a power to blatantly discriminate based solely on race. They have been allowed to violate the right to bear arms and own common fire arms, an inalienable right enshrined into the Constitution. Yet, they can’t regulate the public safety of abortion clinics nor define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

This is the perverse nature of entrusting the legal profession as the final arbiter of fundamental rights and all societal and political issues.

A Harbinger of the Future

Many conservatives will conclude from here that the coming election is all the more important in shaping the balance of the court. This case demonstrates the folly of that line of thinking for several reasons.

1. As is most often the case concerning the fabrication of new rights, Justice Kennedy was with the four impervious leftists. Thus, even if we successfully fill Scalia’s seat with an originalist, they will still have a 5-4 majority in most cases.

2. So many of these cases are decided in the lower courts, and even those that make it to the Supreme Court are often influenced by the momentum of the lower courts. As I’ve noted on many occasions, the lower courts are even worse than the Supreme Court and that is not going to change any time this generation. Texas is lucky that it is under the jurisdiction of the one remaining originalist-majority circuit – the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is why this case went so far. On the other hand, lower courts recently struck down North Dakota’s ban on abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy and even Arizona’s law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to those appeals, which means there were no more than three justices willing to overturn the lower courts even with Scalia alive.

3. Only Justice Thomas was willing to fully uphold the Texas laws. Justices Alito and Roberts would have remanded the case back to the lower courts to better analyze the effects of the law in limiting access to abortion. Now, it could be that they still fundamentally oppose the entire abortion jurisprudence and were just playing within the sand box created by Roe and Casey, albeit with a more milquetoast approach than Thomas. But it is quite likely, especially in the case of Roberts, that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade. This is the fundamental problem with those who believe we can win the “judicial game” by appointing better justices. There is enough existing “jurisprudence” to destroy every facet of the Constitution based on liberal precedent, and there are few judges like Thomas who are willing to go back to the original Constitution, even if it means countermanding decades of odious precedent.

The Path Forward

This is why I’m excited to announce the release of my new book, “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America,” on July 19. The courts are irremediably broken and it’s time Congress exercise its power to regulate the jurisdiction of the court. Broad societal questions, such as abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty should not be entrusted to the courts, especially given that they have insurmountable majorities that will likely expand the backwards post-constitutional jurisprudence and will certainly apply the existing precedent. In this case, for example, Congress could strip the courts of any jurisdiction to hear cases overturning state laws regulating abortion. State courts could still hear those cases and it would be up to state legislatures to reform their own state judiciaries. But there is a solution on the federal level and it’s high time we exercise it.

It’s also high time for some long-term solutions to restore our right to self-governance and restore state power. As Mark Levin laid out in “Liberty Amendments,” we need a convention of the states with a targeted agenda to reclaim that power for the people and the states. One of them is granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies. Between the power to regulate jurisdiction, which is already in the Constitution, and the new initiative to overrule decisions, the court will be restored to its proper role of interpreting the application of statutes and its very limited original jurisdiction.

Or, we can just sit back and watch social transformation without representation and allow Anthony Kennedy to serve as king. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Takes Abortion Zeal to New Level” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

March_for_Life,_Washington,_D.C._(2013) (1)

Pregnancy Center’s Pro-Life Message Will Not Be Silenced in Indiana

An Indiana pregnancy center won a victory for the pro-life message Wednesday when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Fort Wayne city-bus system “unfairly censored” its pro-life ads.

LifeNews reports, that the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the pregnancy center—Women’s Health Link—celebrated the decision.

“A government shouldn’t be censoring ads from a group like Women’s Health Link when it is running nearly identical ads from other groups, such as The United Way. The 7th Circuit’s decision rightly understands that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all people, regardless of their political, moral, or religious views,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued before the 7th Circuit earlier this month. “The city of Fort Wayne’s bus system has a responsibility, like all other government entities, to ensure equal access to community advertising forums that it creates.”

Womens Health Link Ad

Conservative Review’s Nate Madden reported on ADF’s lawsuit earlier this June.

According to the complaint from ADF, Citilink — Fort Wayne’s bus system — ran afoul of the First Amendment in its dealings with Women’s Health Link when it refused to ruse a series of ads “due to Plaintiff’s life-affirming viewpoint regarding the promotion of public health, association with a pro-life group, and alleged discussion of ‘controversial issues’ on its website, which constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination.”

The 7th Circuit’s ruling overturned a previous ruling from the U.S. District Court that sided with Citilink.

According to the ADF, the decision recognized that Women’s Health Link’s ad “complies fully with the conditions set forth in Citilink’s rules,” and found that the ad “is a public service announcement that does not so much as hint at advocating or endorsing any political, moral, or religious position… Yet the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of Citilink. He shouldn’t have.”

Women’s Health Link provides pregnant women with alternatives to abortion through counseling and material support. (For more from the author of “Pregnancy Center’s Pro-Life Message Will Not Be Silenced in Indiana” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5019846884_1c47ebb506_b (1)

California Judge Refuses to Throw out Lawsuit From Church Objecting to Paying for Abortions

A federal district court judge in California is allowing a church’s lawsuit against the state over an abortion funding requirement to proceed. But that was only one of two decisions bearing on the case issued two days apart, and the other was not favorable to pro-life interests.

Skyline Wesleyan Church had filed a lawsuit against the state, asserting that a state agency’s new interpretation of California law would violate both federal and state law by requiring the church to provide insurance coverage for elective abortions. The California Department of Managed Healthcare responded by requesting the court dismiss the case, but Judge Marilyn Huff disagreed in an opinion issued on June 20.

In Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care, the CDMH claimed that abortion is a “basic right” and therefore all insurance plans had to include it. To do otherwise would constitute discrimination prohibited by the California Constitution. The church objected that the requirement violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as its rights under the California state constitution. The church also objected that the agency had not followed state law by issuing the order without required public notice and comment.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU had aggressively sought the new interpretation, in response to Catholic universities in California dropping abortion coverage from their health insurance. According to Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said the the CDMH acted “t the behest of organizations such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood,” which used their political power to coerce organizations they disagreed with.

In her decision, Huff granted part of the CDMH’s appeal, by rejecting the church’s claims that its Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated, but let the rest stand. However, the church can reassert that claim by amending the argument and filing it again. The church has one month to respond and the CDMH thirty days after that to respond to the church.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremiah Galus, who is representing the church, praised the decision. “Californians shouldn’t be forced to choose between following their deepest convictions and submitting to unlawful, unjust government mandates,” he said.

The California mandate leaves churches with no legal way at all to opt out of paying for abortions. The Department of Managed Health Care unconstitutionally forced abortion coverage into churches’ health insurance plans without their knowledge or approval, and the agency didn’t even follow the appropriate administrative procedures to institute this mandate. The court was right to deny the state’s attempt to escape accountability for its actions.

Win one, lose one

The news for organizations opposed to abortion and for religious liberty was only half-good, however. In 2014, seven California churches, along with the California Conference of Catholic Bishops and Loyola Marymount University, had challenged the agency’s interpretation by filing a complaint with the federal HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The complaint alleged that the agency’s ruling violated the federal Weldon Amendment, an annual appropriations rider that prohibits discrimination against health care entities that refuse to provide coverage for abortion.

OCR dismissed the complaint on June 22, stating, “OCR found no violation of the Weldon Amendment and is closing this matter without further action.” Quoting Congressman Weldon himself at length, the agency’s head Jocelyn Samuels said the amendment applies to insurance companies, not to employers that have a moral objection to abortion.

The ACLU cheered the dismissal. The group’s legislative counsel said that the decision “affirms what has always been true, that safe and legal abortion is basic health care that all women should be able to access without interference. The religious beliefs of others must not be used to restrict women’s access to constitutionally protected care.”

In contrast, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) criticized the decision, noting that the Weldon Amendment has been renewed every year and signed by President Obama, but his administration “has again shown blatant disregard for the rule of law. This decision illustrates the far reaches of Obama’s radical pro-abortion ideology — forcing churches and communities of faith that have pro-life convictions to participate in and pay for a practice that dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children.”

Smith called Congress to “take this issue out of the hands of the Obama Administration by moving enforcement of current conscience protections to the courts. Congress needs to enact legislation so churches and other victims have a ‘private right of action’ so they can have their day in court.”

Casey Mattox, senior counsel for the Life Legal Defense Foundation, condemned the decision as cherrypicking. “The Obama Administration’s refusal to enforce this law continues its pattern of enforcing laws it wants to enforce, refusing to enforce others, and inventing new interpretations of others out of whole cloth.” (For more from the author of “California Judge Refuses to Throw out Lawsuit From Church Objecting to Paying for Abortions” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Woman: I Aborted 18 Baby Girls to Give My Husband the Son He Wanted

Most of us don’t pay much attention to the issue of sex-selective abortion – either because we think it doesn’t affects us, or because we don’t realize how widespread it is and how much it is affecting our world. But its impact reaches far and wide, even here in the United States.

We are all aware of the population control that occurs in China with its one child policy. Most parents there want a boy, so over the years, the ratio of males to females born has been greatly altered. In 2004, the ratio was 121.2 boys for every 100 girls. The natural ratio is 103 to 106 boys for every 100 girls. But it isn’t just China . . .

One such woman had already given birth to four daughters, and was depressed for not conceiving a son. She recently admitted on Vietnam television that she aborted 18 baby girls in order to give her husband the son he wants.

Eighteen preborn baby girls aborted to get one son— and groups like Planned Parenthood support this. When the abortion lobby shows that support, they also enforce the idea that baby girls are inferior to baby boys. And that belief is one that leads to gendercide, abandonment, infanticide, and gender imbalance. (Read more from “Feminist: Toddler’s Gator Death ‘Social Justice'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Abortion ‘Spas’: The Left’s Latest Attempt to Glamorize Murdering the Unborn

A multi-state abortion provider boasting a high-end, “spa-like” experience is attempting to de-stigmatize the procedure through a crowd-funded ad campaign in Atlanta.

Carafem has designed its abortion clinic to look like a spa and offers the women who go there to abort their unborn babies “hot tea” and “comfy robes.” They gained national attention last year for an advertising campaign that some suggested “glamorized” abortion.

Carafem opened its first facility in the greater Washington metro area in spring 2015, boasting comfy chairs and hot tea for women seeking abortions.

“It was important for us to try to present an upgraded, almost spa-like feel,” Melissa S. Grant, vice president of health services for the clinic told the Washington Post.

The organization subsequently announced its capital city arrival with brash, hot pink ads saying “Abortion? Yeah, we do that,” on the D.C. metro system. Now, it hopes to bring the same advertising experience to the Peach State.

For its new location, which open in Atlanta this summer, the abortion provider plans to roll out a “Doors Open Atlanta” campaign, proffering abortion, birth control, and other services to women in the same “bold and unapologetic” hot pink motif, according to a Monday press release.

In addition, Carafem is looking for some extra scratch via Crowdsourcing in order to pay for the ads, LifeNews reports.

The abortion business said its ads have been censored three times; but now it wants to raise enough money to try again. Carafem recently launched a fundraising campaign to pay for ads in Atlanta. The ads are hot pink with emoji images and the word “abortion” printed in bold letters.

“As we just opened our doors in Atlanta and need to get the word out, we thought why not try and shake things up by advertising our services in a major conservative newspaper for a year,” the business wrote.

The message Carafem wants its advertising to convey is that abortion is safe, clean, even caring, all the while letting women know where to get abortions in a way that “normalizes and destigmatizes” the procedure.

“We don’t want to talk in hushed tones. We use the A-word.” Carafem President Christopher Purdy said. “It’s fresh, it’s modern, it’s clean, it’s caring. That’s the brand we’re trying to create.”

Pro-Life groups are up in-arms.

The president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said “Even people who support abortion rights don’t necessarily see it as something to celebrate. They want to think about [abortion] as a necessary evil.” National Right to Life president, Carol Tobias, added, “Abortion is not pleasant and trying to put pretty wrappings around the procedure isn’t going to make any difference.”

Whether an abortion takes place at a run-down Gosnell-like facility or at a “high-end salon,” abortion always, 100% of the time, kills an unborn child and hurts the family involved.

(For more from the author of “Abortion ‘Spas’: The Left’s Latest Attempt to Glamorize Murdering the Unborn” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

baby-feet-833375_960_720 (1)

StemExpress Sold Baby Body Parts for 4 to 6 Times Cost, House Probe Alleges

Republicans on a special House panel investigating the market for fetal tissue released new documents that they said show the procurement company StemExpress marked up the price for body parts, organs, and other tissue from aborted babies 400 to 600 percent when selling the samples to researchers.

One example of such markups of four to six times cost is seven brains sold by StemExpress to Yale University School of Medicine for $715 each, according to the documents.

The documents also appear to show that three abortion clinics, including two Planned Parenthood affiliates, illegally granted StemExpress access to personally identifiable information protected under federal privacy law.

And, the documents suggest, the clinics used invalid patient consent forms to obtain permission to harvest body parts from aborted babies.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., chairman of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, sent two letters Wednesday to the Department of Health and Human Services requesting a “swift and full investigation” into “systemic” violations.

“There’s a business contract between StemExpress and the abortion clinics under which both sides make a profit from the baby body parts inside the young woman’s womb,” Blackburn said in a prepared statement, adding:

The contract changes the way both entities view the young woman: Her baby is now a profit center. This betrayal of a young woman’s trust should disgust us all. It takes financial advantage, obtains consent through coercion, and deceives the woman, all in violation of federal privacy laws.

StemExpress told The Daily Signal that Blackburn is making “continued unfounded accusations.”

Specifically, Blackburn says documents obtained through the panel’s investigation show StemExpress and several abortion clinics violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and federal regulations governing research involving human subjects.

HIPPA is a federal law that gives patients the right to determine where and when their private medical information is disclosed. This includes personally identifiable information such as name, age, and Social Security number, along with any present, future, or past health data.

In her letters, addressed to two officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, Blackburn said several abortion clinics provided StemExpress—which is not covered by HIPPA—with personally identifiable information so that StemExpress could fulfill orders from researchers for tissue from aborted babies.

HIPPA covers abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood, Blackburn notes.

‘Unfounded Accusations’

In a statement to The Daily Signal, a spokesman for StemExpress said the tissue procurement company is “confident there has been no violation of law and appropriate consents were made for every fetal tissue donation,” adding:

We welcome the opportunity to answer any questions from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or any other agency related to Representative Blackburn’s continued unfounded accusations. StemExpress will continue to support lifesaving research.

The three abortion clinics named in the investigation are all in California: Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in San Jose, Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific in Concord (currently known as Planned Parenthood of Northern California), and Family Planning Specialists Medical Group in Oakland.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the organizations, which did not respond to phone calls before publication of this article.

Blackburn’s letters, first reported by Fox News, ask the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate potential violations of HIPAA and federal regulations pertaining to the fetal tissue market. The letters are addressed to Jocelyn Samuels, director of the Office of Civil Rights, and Jerry Menikoff, director of the Office for Human Research Protections.

In her letters, Blackburn said the Department of Health and Human Services maintains the right to impose civil money penalties on covered entities, such as Planned Parenthood, that fail to comply with the privacy rule.

In addition, Blackburn wrote, “both a covered entity that discloses, and any person who knowingly obtains, [protected health information] in violation of [HIPAA] can face criminal fines or imprisonment.”

Brain Bonuses

Evidence of the House panel’s allegations included StemExpress documents that feature compensation rates for tissue and blood procurement. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, StemExpress paid procurement technicians $10 per hour, plus what the company calls a tissue or blood bonus ranging anywhere from $10 to $75 per specimen.

“StemExpress paid the abortion clinic for each fetal tissue and each blood sample and then marked up the tissue four to six hundred percent for sale to the researcher,” Blackburn wrote.

In one case, in January 2012, StemExpress billed $5,175 to Yale University School of Medicine for seven brains priced at $715 each. The total included two charges of $85 for Fedex priority overnight shipping.

The $715 price per brain, Blackburn’s letter implies, would include the markup of 400 to 600 percent.

According to the StemExpress compensation policy, procurement technicians get a $35 bonus for procuring anywhere from one to 10 fetal brains in addition to their $10 hourly rate.

While transportation costs were included in the documents released by Blackburn’s panel, investigators are seeking to obtain accounting records from StemExpress to further clarify the price discrepancy between the procurement technician’s compensation rates and the total amount billed to research institutions such as Yale.

The Daily Signal sought comment from Yale via email, but has not received a response.

What Is Legal

The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 prohibits any person or organization from 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.”

Lawmakers and pro-life activists raised questions about whether abortion clinics and middleman procurement companies such as StemExpress profit from transactions involving organs, body parts, and other tissue from aborted babies after the Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos last year.

The hidden-camera videos, produced by the center’s David Daleiden, showed officials at Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing the buying and selling of baby body parts and other tissue, raising questions about whether abortion clinics and middlemen companies are profiting off these transactions.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America consistently has denied any wrongdoing and was cleared in multiple state investigations so far. In October, after facing questions about its tissue donation practices, Planned Parenthood announced it no longer would accept any reimbursement. (For more from the author of “StemExpress Sold Baby Body Parts for 4 to 6 Times Cost, House Probe Alleges” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


House Panel Says Abortion Centers, Fetal Harvesting Company Violated Federal Law

The Congressional panel investigating the fetal tissue research company StemExpress, which the Center for Medical Progress exposed in its groundbreaking undercover videos about fetal body parts trafficking, found that StemExpress and the abortion centers with which it contracted violated federal patient privacy and informed consent regulations.

In two letters to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives Chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn detailed the panel’s findings on StemExpress’s cozy relationships with abortion facilities. The panel found that StemExpress employees had access to confidential patient health information—which they had no medically necessary reason to see and the abortion centers had no reason to disclose—in order to streamline their workflow and thus maximize profits. According to the Panel, StemExpress was allowed to use this confidential information to be matched up with patients whose aborted babies matched their tissue demands.

The letters indicate that StemExpress employees were working alongside abortion workers in ways that appear to conflict with regulations related to research on human subjects and federal privacy law.

Blackburn wrote that federal regulations require specific procedures to be followed when research is being conducted on human subjects. Research on human subjects must be approved by a valid Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that the research is ethical and safe.

StemExpress didn’t follow these procedures when obtaining informed consent from abortion clinic patients, Blackburn wrote. Blackburn’s letter said it’s unclear whether patients consented to donating tissue from their aborted infants before or after the abortion procedures took place and the manner in which patient consent was obtained raises “serious concerns” about whether patients were coerced or unduly influenced into donating fetal tissue. (Read more from “House Panel Says Abortion Centers, Fetal Harvesting Company Violated Federal Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

8571618966_1df938ffbe_b (1)

Ted Cruz Vows to Fight Trump on Abortion

Senator Ted Cruz (A, 97%) may have suspended his presidential campaign, but he is keeping his promise to continue to fight for conservative principles, vowing to challenge Donald Trump on the abortion plank of the Republican Platform.

During an interview on the “Today” Show on NBC in late April, Trump said he would change the Republican Party platform on abortion, adding exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother to the party’s pro-life position.

Cruz, speaking to Oklahoma radio host Pat Campbell, pledged to use his delegates to the Republican National Convention to fight that change.

“You have my word. One of the reasons that we are continuing to work to elect conservatives to be delegates, even though Donald has the delegates to get the nomination, we intend to do everything we can to fight for conservative principles to prevent Washington forces from watering down the platform,”

Cruz continued:

“The platform is a manifestation of what we believe as a party, and I think it is important that it continue to reflect conservative values, free-market values, constitutional liberties, Judeo-Christian principles, the values that built this country, and that is exactly what I intend to fight for.”

In his speech announcing an end to his presidential campaign, Senator Cruz made a promise:

“I am not suspending our fight to defend the constitution, to defend the Judeo-Christian values that built America. Our movement will continue and I give you my word that I will continue this fight with all of my strength and all of my ability.”

His vow to fight to keep the Republican Party platform unequivocally pro-life shows that Cruz intends to keep that promise. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz Vows to Fight Trump on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.