While the nation awaits a decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, which will be the most important abortion-related ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court’s tragically flawed 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, two recent actions at the court indicate there are winds blowing in favor of the pro-life cause.
After delaying action for months, the justices on May 29 declined to hear a case that sought to overturn an Arkansas law on chemical abortion. The 2015 law requires abortion providers to have contracts with physicians who have hospital admitting privileges. Abortionists working for Planned Parenthood were unable to find doctors willing to sign such a contract, but certainly not for lack of trying.
According to Arkansas Online:
“Some physicians or group practices informed us that they do not support a woman’s right to access abortion and would not help us,” Ho said. “Others stated that they simply could not work with us, and at some group practices, the front desk staff was so hostile … that they would not even let us speak to the physicians and refused to take messages.”
“Some physicians or group practices informed us that they do not support a woman’s right to access abortion and would not help us,” Ho said. “Others stated that they simply could not work with us, and at some group practices, the front desk staff was so hostile … that they would not even let us speak to the physicians and refused to take messages.”
Planned Parenthood’s facilities in Fayetteville and Little Rock offer only chemical abortion so will be unable to lawfully kill children in the womb while the case continues in the lower courts. (Interestingly, while Planned Parenthood said it would discontinue chemical abortions, there’s no indication of that on the organization’s website.) But the nation’s number one abortion business, which filed for emergency relief just hours after the Supreme Court announced it would not take on the case, is hoping to get the law blocked again. Planned Parenthood hates to lose a sale.
The second case that indicates that the pro-life cause is faring better at the Supreme Court than it did two years ago came on June 4, when the justices unanimously vacated an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had allowed a pregnant, undocumented minor in federal custody to have an abortion back in October.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union who were hoping to use the Appeals Court ruling as precedent will have to change their plans. The lives of other children in the womb could thereby be spared in the near future.
There were indications that the justices were divided on this case, which was “relisted” (postponed) for more than four months. The eventual, unsigned five-page opinion noted merely that the Appeals Court order should be vacated because the point had become moot. If the opinion invokes an image of Pontius Pilate washing his hands, at least it muddies the waters for attorneys hoping to rush their future minor charges through the irrevocable and heart-breaking process of abortion.
The Department of Justice also had asked the Supreme Court to sanction the lawyers who managed to change the girl’s abortion appointment from 10 a.m. to 4:15 a.m., without telling the Department of Justice and before the government could petition the Supreme Court for review of the Appeals Court ruling. It’s disappointing that the Court denied this request, but the situation is certainly illustrative of how far abortion advocates and abortionists will go to ensure that an “unplanned” child does not make it out of the womb alive.
The NIFLA case, brought by our friends at the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates, does not have much in common with either the Arkansas or immigration cases. It is solidly a First Amendment case that centers on compelled speech. California passed a law mandating that pregnancy help centers in the state tell clients where they can go for a free or low-cost abortion.
Pregnancy health centers exist to provide mothers with alternatives to abortion. Coercing them to refer to the very thing they work against is akin to forcing Alcoholics Anonymous to advertise the latest specials at the liquor store down the street. I believe the law is firmly on the side of the pregnancy centers and with a court that seems more likely to judge the case on its merits rather than its liberal wing’s knee-jerk reaction in favor of abortion, I’m anticipating another victory at the Supreme Court.
Father Frank Pavone (@frfrankpavone) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the national director of Priests for Life.
