Blog

The Supreme Court has taken up one of the most important abortion-related cases in decades – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In doing so, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether abortion limits placed prior to 15 weeks gestation are constitutional or not.  

Because a decision will not be reached until next summer, this next year will be a hard-fought battle – not only in the courts – but also for public opinion on the matter. 

With tremendous advances in science and technology, we know so much about the unborn baby at fifteen weeks, including that the baby has all of his/her functioning organs, a visible skeleton, and is practicing things like sucking and swallowing! 

Additionally, public opinion polls for well over a decade show that 65% or more of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. As of January 2020, Marist Poll found that number to be 7 in 10 Americans who support limiting abortion only to the first three months of pregnancy. 

Despite this, immediately following the Supreme Court announcement, pro-abortion advocacy organizations began working overtime to convince Americans they don’t want the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the unborn.  

While we have come a long way in educating the American public about the humanity of the unborn child, this moment is a critical one for education. Please stay informed! 

Here are a few recent interviews, opinion pieces and articles that explain the importance of this case:  

---

President of the March for Life Explains Significance Behind US Supreme Court’s Announcement 

---

Supreme Court to Hear Major Abortion Case 

---

A Time for Courage on the Supreme Court 

---

Democracy Is the Issue in the Mississippi Abortion Case

---

Supreme Court Will Consider Mississippi’s 15-Week Abortion Ban

---

We hope you find these resources useful, and we will be sure to keep you in the loop as this case proceeds!  

In the meantime, please join us in praying for a favorable outcome that honors the dignity and humanity of the unborn child.  

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS

When Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Guttmacher are on red alert, you know the pro-life movement is making major advances. 

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute – originally the research arm of Planned Parenthood – 2021 is on track to the most impactful year of pro-life legislation in decades. 

Since January, 536 abortion regulations have been proposed across 46 states. In the words of Guttmacher, “A whopping 61 of those restrictions have been enacted across 13 states, including eight bans.” 

This past week alone has been the single most productive week for pro-lifers in at least a decade. Between April 26 and April 29 alone, 28 pro-life bills were signed into law. Here are just a few of the newest pro-life victories: 

 ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed SB 1457 into law, banning abortions based on a prenatal diagnosis of genetic abnormality, including Down syndrome. 

HEARTBEAT LAWS 

Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed HB 366, also known as the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, into law on April 27. The law bans abortions after an unborn baby’s heart can be detected, usually around the 6-week mark. 

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt followed suit with HB 2441, with classifies a doctor performing an abortion after the heartbeat is detectable as “unprofessional conduct.” 

PAIN–CAPABLE LAWS 

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed HB 136, prohibiting abortions of babies capable of feeling pain. Other Montana laws include requiring a pregnant women be offered the option of viewing an ultrasound prior to an abortion and additional protective requirements surrounding chemical abortion. 

This momentum shows a true desire for a post-Roe America, and we can’t let up. We’ve seen the powerful impact we can have on the local level, even during times of extreme opposition.

Faced with a radically pro-abortion Administration and Congress, we need to unite our voices for the unborn. While the states fight to preserve the rights of the unborn, the House is currently stripping survivors of abortion – newborn infants –  of access to medical care. At the same time, the Senate is seeking to redirect millions of COVID relief funds to the abortion lobby. We cannot let these injustices continue. We need YOUR voice!

Join the March for Life Activist Network to stay up to date on all pro-life legislation happening in your state and across the country.

In the last year, virtual advocacy has exploded, and more people than ever are contacting their lawmakers online about important issues. By joining our Activist Network, you will receive pro-life alerts with action items throughout the year so that you can use your voice to defend life!

---

Join Today!

---

 

While today we are hearing that Supreme Court oral arguments are being postponed due to Covid-19 precautions, it was only less than two weeks ago, on March 4, that we witnessed a media storm surrounding the oral arguments of the SCOTUS case, June Medical Services v. Russo, the Louisiana law related to health regulations at abortion centers. Many pro-life advocates are confused by the media messaging surrounding this case, and are struck particularly by the irony that the law is not specifically about abortion, but is rather about safety.

Long gone are the days of the pro-choice mantra “safe, legal and rare,” and the fact is, we must advocate for the health and safety of pregnant women who make an abortion decision, as well as accompany her through the process of emotional, spiritual, and physical healing afterwards. As pro-life advocates, we mourn the thousands of lives lost every day in clinics across the country, but will not stand by as abortionists profit off of unsafe, unclean, and unregulated procedures.

This law, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (Act 620), authored by House Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-LA), would require doctors operating out of abortion clinics in Louisiana to have hospital admitting privileges within a 30-mile radius of the facility—a standard protocol for any outpatient surgical facility.

This would mean that if something went wrong during an abortion procedure (besides the obvious, tragic loss of life of the unborn child) and the woman needed specialized attention in a hospital, she would be transferred there and treated immediately, either by the same doctor or another doctor that has been fully briefed on the details of the emergency. As noted by Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and the chairman of the board of the American Association of Prolife OB/GYNs (AAPLOG), even the notoriously pro-abortion ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) recommend a face-to-face patient handoff as best practice.

It is important to mention that Louisiana law states that all ambulatory surgical centers (anywhere you might receive an outpatient surgical procedure) are held to this standard of requiring admitting privileges—except, however, for abortion clinics. Many Louisiana lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are looking to close this loophole and raise the standard of care for women seeking abortions.

March for Life Education & Defense Fund is wholly against abortion at any stage and seeks to make it unthinkable at all costs. In our mission to build a culture of life, we can and must recognize that far too often a woman’s safety is jeopardized at the hands of profit-driven abortion facilities with poor standards of care. As documented in the Friend of the Court Briefing put forward by Americans United for Life, the three abortion clinics implicated in this case have over 35 health and safety violations accumulated over the last decade, with infractions including “failure to properly clean and disinfect instruments after use in patient procedures,” “failure to monitor each abortion patient’s level of consciousness, respiratory status, and cardiovascular statues during abortion procedures for patients receiving IV medications and inhalation gas agents,” and “failure to ensure qualification, training, and competency of staff administering IV medications and analgesic gases to patients,” among many others. Next time someone tells you that closing abortion clinics will result in back-alley conditions, remind them that these dangerous conditions already exist in abortion clinics across the country.

So, while asking for hospital admitting privileges may seem like the logical response to this situation, there are several secondary factors that have succeeded in splintering approval around what should be a commonly accepted law. Here are a few questions to address in order to better understand June Medical Services v. Russo:

1) What was Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and how does it relate to June Medical Services v. Russo?

2) What is the concept of ‘undue burden,’ and does it apply here?

3) Is it a conflict of interest for an abortion clinic to represent women in a court of law?

4) What do the Supreme Court Justices think?

What was Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and how does it relate to June Medical Services v. Russo?

In 2016, the Supreme Court took up a similar bill out of Texas, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which, like June Medical Services v. Russo, would have required Texas abortion clinics to gain admitting privileges at local hospitals. This bill was ultimately denied by SCOTUS; a ruling that many pro-abortion advocates are claiming should be applied correspondingly to June Medical Services v. Russo.

Despite the talking points that these two bills are identical, there are actually a few major differences that caused the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow June Medical to move forward in Louisiana. These include a) the laws of these two states as they apply to ambulatory surgical centers, and b) the idea that women in Texas would have been subject to ‘undue burden,’ as a result of this bill, and women in Louisiana would not.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt would have also required all ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) to adhere to certain structural standards for hallway width and accessibility for EMTs, a requirement that June Medical Services v. Russo does not include in its bill. This structural requirement alone was enough to close a majority of the clinics in Texas and was consequently left out of the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.

Regarding the restriction that does apply, hospital admitting privileges, it is important to note that in Louisiana all other ASCs (anywhere where outpatient surgeries are performed) are already held to this standard, regardless of the rate at which complications actually occur during the procedure. Louisiana Attorney General, Jeff Landry, states that “this rule recognizes the higher degree of risk to patients at facilities where a high volume of surgical procedures are performed. Act 620 closed a statutory loophole by requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other Louisiana Department of Health-licensed outpatient surgical facilities in the State. Texas’ law, in contrast, did not require ASC medical staff to have privileges.” So the law simply eliminates the regulatory exception that abortion clinics have been receiving for years; abortion clinics are no longer given a “pass” on health and safety but are treated as other outpatient facilities.

What is the concept of ‘undue burden’ and does it apply here?

As previously mentioned, the second major difference between Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt and June Medical Services v. Russo is the idea of a regulation placing ‘undue burden’ on women who wish to seek an abortion; in other words, making it too difficult for her to easily access an abortion facility. This video by the Federalist Society outlines how in the Texas case, about half of the abortion clinics in question would have closed upon passing the bill, and while that would undoubtedly be a pro-life victory in and of itself, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to ask a woman to potentially drive hundreds of miles to the nearest abortion clinic. With the broad geography of Texas, this was a major concern. But, can the judges claim the same undue burden in Louisiana?

There is not enough evidence to support the idea that any of the clinics in Louisiana would be forced to close because of this law. LA Attorney General again states “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Louisiana’s law would not force any abortion clinic closures, saying, ‘there is no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act,’ and reiterating later that ‘the only permissible finding, under this record, is that no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of the Act.’”

Even if they did close, it would be because they fail to reach proper medical standards and should remain closed until they can comply with the standard of care of all other ASCs in the state. Four out of the six doctors implicated in this case have already had admitting privileges at some point in their careers, and it is likely they would be able to gain them again. The Federalist Society cites this in their video claiming that “if these physicians had actually used good faith efforts to obtain those admitting privileges, at most we would have one doctor that ends up having to leave one of the clinics, and that that work could be divided in such a way between the remaining doctors that, at most, the women at that clinic would experience a 50-minute delay.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revealed this in their study of the case.

Is it a conflict of interest for an abortion clinic to represent women in a court of law?

It is clear from recent polling surrounding this bill that Americans overwhelmingly believe abortion clinics should be held to the same standard of care as all other ambulatory facilities. So, why is the abortion lobby telling us otherwise? Would any woman genuinely want a lower standard of care when receiving a potentially dangerous procedure? According to these polls the answer is no. Thus, for an abortion clinic to claim to have a woman’s ‘best interest’ in mind, while actively lobbying to lower her standard of care, is a glaring irony and clear conflict of interest. How can an abortion clinic with a history of harming women accurately claim to know what is best for her?

Justice Alito asked about this topic during the oral arguments (transcript here). He questioned, “I know you think that the admitting privileges requirement serves no safety purpose, but suppose that the regulation that was being challenged was one that a lot of people might think really did serve a safety purpose…Now, if they’re wrong about that, it implicates the interests of the women who may want to get an abortion, but you would say the clinic nevertheless can sue on behalf of those women?” He later added, “The constitutional right at issue is not a constitutional right of abortion clinics, is it? It’s the right of women.” In drawing this comparison, Alito questioned the abortion lobby’s motives in this case.

Speaking of the Supreme Court Justices, what do they think?

This is the first abortion-related case taken up by SCOTUS since the recently elected Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the bench. Both he and Justice Neil Gorsuch are new to the Supreme Court since the ruling on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and are seen as important allies to the pro-life argument, but the apparent conservative majority doesn’t mean much in terms of outcome predictability.

While Justice Alito asked several questions and seemed to lean towards a more conservative view of the bill, there were an equal number of questions from Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who were vocal in working towards the opposite conclusion. It was clear that the oral arguments were not going to draw a consensus, with Justice Stephen Breyer commenting “we’re not going to solve this at oral argument.” The Supreme Court will spend the next few months reviewing the documents and will likely come to a decision to be made public in late June 2020.

While we can hope and pray for the Supreme Court to uphold this law, we can also acknowledge that June Medical Services v. Russo will set more than just a judicial precedent. Many are watching this case closely with an eye towards the question: do abortion clinics have women’s best interests in mind? Pro-life Americans know the answer to that question. It is our mission to be pro-baby and pro-woman: to defend the care and safety of every woman, to listen to the stories of those who have been hurt by their abortions and abortion experiences, and to find common ground on issues that will help to foster a culture of life in our country.

 

2019 was a year of major victories in the pro-life movement! Before we look towards the future of the pro-life movement at the 2020 March for Life on January 24, let’s look back on some of our favorite moments and accomplishments from 2019.

Vice President Mike Pence surprised the crowd at the 2019 March for Life Rally and spoke at the March for Life Rose Dinner.

President Donald Trump shared a video message from the Rose Garden, declaring his commitment to veto any legislation removing pro-life policies.

The 1st Virginia March for Life drew over 7,000 Virginians to the state capital, making it the largest crowd to assemble at the Richmond Capitol outside of a Governor’s Inauguration.

By the close of 2019, March for Life announced the 1st Connecticut March for Life on April 15, 2020, the 1st Pennsylvania March for Life on May 18, 2020, and the 2nd Virginia March for Life on February 13, 2020.

March for Life co-hosted “Alive From New York” with Focus on the Family, the largest pro-life event ever held in the Big Apple. Crowds gathered in Time Square to watch a live 4D sonogram of Abby Johnson’s baby and hear his heartbeat.

The Hill Top Lobbyist 2019 named March for Life Action President Tom McClusky as the leading voice in pro-life activism on Capitol Hill.

Since joining the March for Life team in 2013, Tom McClusky has worked hard to take the collective, massive voice of the marchers to the Hill throughout the entire year.

March for Life Action mobilized thousands of citizens throughout the year to be powerful voices for life.

Through our Action Campaigns, we mobilized:

41K citizens to petition Congress 118K times in support of the Born Alive Act. The Born Alive Act Discharge Petition was brought to the House Floor with a record 191 signatures.

8.8K citizens to petition Congress 111K times to stop funding research on aborted baby body parts. On June 5, the Trump Administration halted all aborted fetal tissue research funding.

20.7K citizens to petition HHS 60K times in support of the Protect Life Rule. As a result, Planned Parenthood lost $60 Million in Title X Funding.

The March for Life team continued to grow, with the addition of 3 new members:

Ann Clare Levy – Social Media Manager

Claire Pullan – Administrative Assistant

Mackenzie Rodgers – Grassroots Project Manager

Their passion for the pro-life movement allows us to take greater strides forward in the fight for life every single day.

We are so proud of the impact we made this year in the fight for life and especially grateful for your support, without which, none of this pro-life work would be possible! Help us continue building a culture of life in 2020 by donating to the March for Life!

DONATE!