Supreme Court Throws Out Ruling Forcing Trump Admin to Help Illegal Immigrants Get Abortions

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a pro-abortion ruling Monday that forced the Trump administration to help facilitate an abortion for an illegal immigrant minor. The decision is a small but important victory for unborn babies in America  because it eliminates a court precedent that sided with radical abortion activists.

The teenager in the case, “Jane Doe,” aborted her 16-week unborn baby in 2017 while staying in a government-run shelter for illegal immigrant minors and refugees. A federal appeals court sided with the ACLU, and forced the government to help facilitate her abortion in October 2017. However, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration argued it is not obliged to facilitate abortions for minors in its care, while the American Civil Liberties Union claimed every woman and girl on U.S. shores has the “right” to abort an unborn baby.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the lower court ruling, according to Reuters. The opinion was not signed, and there were no dissents. The high court said the matter is not debatable anymore because the teenager already aborted her baby and is no longer in federal custody. However, it also allowed other similar lawsuits to continue through the courts, the report states.

The court did not grant the government’s request for disciplinary action against the ACLU lawyers. The Trump administration said the ACLU lawyers should be disciplined because they misled the government about the time of the young woman’s abortion appointment and did not allow time for an appeal prior to the unborn baby’s abortion death.

Los Angeles Times reports more: The justices also took no action on the administration’s request for sanctions against ACLU lawyers.

Administration lawyers had alleged the ACLU attorneys misled them by taking the young woman to see a doctor early in the morning before they could seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The ACLU disagreed and said its lawyers had reacted reasonably after a judge cleared the way for their client to have the abortion.

“On the one hand, all attorneys must remain aware of the principle that zealous advocacy does not displace their obligations as officers of the court,” the justices wrote in Azar vs. Garza. “On the other hand, lawyers also have ethical obligations to their clients and not all communications breakdowns constitute misconduct.”

The 17-year-old “Jane Doe” came to the country illegally and was staying at a taxpayer-funded shelter in Texas when she requested an abortion. The shelter did not assist her, citing a new government policy that they offer life-affirming support to women and girls who are pregnant, according to Slate.

According to the report, the shelter took “Jane Doe” to a pro-life pregnancy resource center instead. The ACLU said the teen did not change her mind after receiving counseling, and scheduled an abortion; however, the shelter where she was staying refused to transport her to the appointment.

Life News article continues here

Judge Slams Parental Notification Law, Claims Teen Girls Have a “Constitutional Right to Abortion”

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

A 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge criticized Indiana on Friday for trying to help ensure that parents are aware when their minor daughter has an abortion.

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the state law, which requires abortion facilities to obtain proof of consent from a parent or legal guardian before a minor daughter gets an abortion. 

The law gives parents/legal guardians a civil recourse if someone fraudulently poses as a parent in order for a minor girl to get an abortion, and it makes sure parents are aware if a minor appears before a judge to request an abortion without parental consent.

“This seems designed to encourage interference with a girl’s constitutional right to an abortion,” U.S. Circuit Judge Illana Rovner said.

Courthouse News reports Rovner and two other judges on the court considered an appeal to uphold the law Friday.

The ACLU of Indiana claimed the law violates young girls’ constitutional rights by imposing “new burdens” on their access to abortion. They also contended that young girls may seek abortions because of abusive home environments – an argument that does not make sense because the law allows a judge to wave the parental consent requirement in such cases.

On Friday, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher emphasized the importance of parents knowing when their daughter has a medical procedure, especially one as physically and emotionally traumatizing as an abortion.

“Parents have a right to know what’s happening to their children,” Fisher said. “Planned Parenthood cannot show this law will inevitably interfere with the abortion rights of minors.”

However, the appeals court judges appeared to agree with the abortion activists. According to the report: Judge [David] Hamilton voiced particular concern for girls in foster care, who have a much higher rate of abortions.

Kenneth Falk, an attorney challenging the law for Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, or PPINK, seized on the same point.

“Evidence shows that notice will lead to abuse – both physical and emotional,” Falk said. “Evidence shows women will be cast out of their homes.”

Parental notification/parental consent laws have strong public support. Currently, 37 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Life News report continues here

Supreme Court Will Decide Jan. 5 Whether to Take Case of Pregnant Undocumented Teenagers’ “Right” to Abortion

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

Veteran Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston reported today that the Supreme has decided to “move ahead on the dispute over teen abortions.” He is referring to the case of three undocumented pregnant girls whom the ACLU has so far successfully argued ought to be allowed to abort.

Denniston begins

The Supreme Court plans to take up at its first private conference in the new year the intense, ongoing fight over an unsettled constitutional question – do undocumented immigrant teenagers who are pregnant have a right to an abortion? That question remains open even though three of those young women have had abortions or are now free to have the procedure.

The Justices are now scheduled to discuss on January 5 the Trump Administration’s appeal, seeking a clear-cut ruling that government officials have no legal duty to do anything to help secure abortions for teenagers being held in custody after they entered the country illegally.

The justices will juggle a multiplicity of issues and arguments. The ACLU’s position is clear. Their lawsuit seeks the right to abort “of all detained teenagers who are or might become pregnant.”

Thus far, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has agreed that all three teenagers must be allowed to abort and so ordered. In response to the latest cases of “Jane Doe” and “Jane Poe,” the government said

“We are deeply disappointed in the decision [by Judge Chutkan] to grant a temporary restraining order that will compel HHS to facilitate abortions for minors when they are not medically necessary,” spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told POLITICO. 

“A pregnant minor who has entered the country illegally has the option to voluntarily depart to her home country or identify a suitable sponsor. HHS-funded facilities that provide temporary shelter and care for unaccompanied alien minors should not become way stations for these children to get taxpayer-facilitated abortions.”

That has been the Trump administration’s position from the beginning: the government is not obliged to “facilitate” these abortions. (As Denniston noted, “Since the Supreme Court has ruled that women in general have a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, and that government may not impose an ‘undue burden’ on that right, the Trump legal team takes the view that failing to facilitate an abortion does not impose any such burden.”)

The Department of Justice argues that these pregnant teenagers may either go back to their home country of origin or “identify a suitable sponsor” but not simply be released on their own recognizance.

National Right to Life article continues here

If ACLU Wins This Case, My Family’s Adoption Story Could Be Impossible

"Every single child, both born and unborn, has inherent dignity."

By Lauren Konkol
Life News

Five international adoptions from China, Guatemala, and South Korea—in addition to my four biological siblings—have made me the oldest of 10 children.

As National Adoption Awareness Month has come and gone, I’ve reflected even more than usual on the incredible blessing I am grateful to call my family.

Each of my siblings has a unique story—one filled with countless challenges and moments of suffering, but also many more of great joy, laughter, and love.

But they all have one thing in common. Their addition into our family was made possible through the gift of adoption, specifically through Christian adoption agencies. But an ongoing court case in Michigan has posed a new threat to the very existence of families like mine.

In Dumont et al. v. Lyon, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sued the state of Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services over a 2015 state adoption law that allows private adoption agencies, like the ones my family used, to freely exercise their religious beliefs in the way they choose to operate their agencies.

This is not a case about hindering a couple’s choice to adopt, nor is it a case about the establishment of religion. Rather, it is a case about religious liberty, and whether the government should partner with faith-based groups to provide adoptive services to families while allowing them to simultaneously maintain their religious views. Even more so, it is a case about how these agencies envision children flourishing in family structures.

In addition to Michigan, six other states—Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia—have enacted similar legislation to protect these adoption agencies from closure.

Additionally, Congress is currently considering the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, which would implement protections for these faith-based agencies at the federal level. But if this law is overturned, and these agencies are forced to close, countless children will suffer in incomprehensible ways.

The plight of over 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S. (13,000 in the Michigan foster care system alone) and 110,000 waiting to be adopted warrants a resounding call to gladly welcome children into our families.

Life News story continues

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.  

ACLU Sues to Force Every Pharmacy in America to Sell the Abortion Drug to Kill Babies

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

A Hawaii abortion activist is suing the federal government in a case that could force every pharmacy in America to sell dangerous abortion drugs.

Dr. Graham Chelius, an ob-gyn in Waimea, Hawaii, is suing the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, the ACLU argues that the FDA is restricting women’s access to abortion by requiring that the abortion drug be dispensed at a medical facility under the supervision of a certified provider (not necessarily even a doctor), KHON News 2 reports.

Chelius and the pro-abortion legal group want the FDA to allow pharmacies to give out the abortion drug mifeprex, also known as mifepristone or RU-486.

The abortion drug works by blocking the hormone progesterone, causing the uterine wall to break down and basically suffocating the unborn baby. A second abortion drug, misoprostol, typically is taken a day or two later to induce contractions to expel the dead baby’s body.

Because of the high failure rate and the risks involved with the abortion drug in later pregnancies, the FDA limited approval for use only in the first 49 days from the start of a woman’s last menstrual period. However, last year under pro-abortion President Barack Obama’s administration, the FDA changed its guidelines for the drug, allowing it to be used later in pregnancy and in smaller doses.

Now, abortion activists are pushing for even fewer regulations.  NPR reports more about the lawsuit:

The suit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Hawaii, challenges a longstanding U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation allowing the abortion pill, Mifeprex, to be dispensed only at a medical facility under the care of a certified provider. Among other requirements, those providers must pre-register with the drug manufacturer, keep the medication in stock, and be capable of providing a surgical abortion if complications arise.

Chelius argues those rules are unnecessary and cumbersome. Hawaii has one of the nation’s highest poverty rates, and the delays and expenses are sometimes insurmountable barriers, Chelius said. The case could have implications beyond Hawaii.

“The FDA restrictions create delays that often push medication abortion out of reach of my patients,” he said. “And some of my patients are simply unable to make this trip and instead have been forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will.”

Life News continues

ACLU Waging All-Out War to Prevent Women From Seeing Ultrasound of Their Baby Before an Abortion

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

Lawyers for the ACLU urged a judge on Thursday to block a Kentucky ultrasound law that requires abortion practitioners to describe the unborn baby and show the mother its image and heartbeat.

The law, one of two that Kentucky lawmakers passed with high priority in January, requires that an abortion practitioner conduct an ultrasound before the abortion (Ultrasounds routinely are performed before abortions anyway). The abortion practitioner also must describe the unborn baby’s image, including its organs and heartbeat, and allow the woman to see her baby’s image and listen to the heartbeat. The law went into immediate effect in January.

Abortion activists quickly challenged the law. On Thursday, ACLU lawyers asked U.S. District Judge David Hale to temporary block the law while their lawsuit proceeds in court, according to the Courier-Journal. Hale did not immediately rule on the request.

The ACLU represents EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, the last abortion clinic in the state. Abortionist Tanya Franklin told the judge Thursday that some of her patients are distraught because they have to look at the ultrasound images.

Here’s more from the Associated Press:  “Some of them are crying, some of them are sobbing, some of them are defeated and desperate,” she said.

[Attorney for the state Steve] Pitt said any concern for the unborn was “missing in action” from the ACLU’s arguments and their witnesses.

He said there was “nothing ideological” in the law’s requirements, saying it seeks to ensure women are fully informed before undergoing an abortion. The lack of complete information risks inflicting emotional harm on women long after they have abortions, he said. Kentucky law already requires counseling 24 hours in advance of an abortion.

Pitt said it takes only a few extra minutes for abortion doctors to attempt to show and explain the images, adding that’s not “much of a burden” in the interests of protecting the woman and fetus.

Life News article continues


Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link. Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest. Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call or text 610-626-4006  


If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.