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

Supreme Court Justices Seem Skeptical of California Law Impinging on Free Speech Rights of Pregnancy Help Centers

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a much-anticipated free speech case in which pro-life pregnancy help centers say the state of California (as one attorney put it) is attempting to conscript them into “acting as a ventriloquist’s dummy for a government message”—abortion.

In their accounts, two major newspapers—the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times—along with NPR, stressed that the so-called Reproductive FACT Act had been met with skepticism across the High Court’s ideological spectrum

The New York Times’ Adam Liptak began his story, 

“A California law that requires ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ to provide information about abortion met a skeptical reception at Supreme Court arguments on Tuesday. Justices across the ideological spectrum said they suspected that the law had singled out centers run by opponents of abortion. Justice Elena Kagan said she feared that the law had been ‘gerrymandered’ to address only some providers, something she said would be a serious First Amendment problem.”

That latter point—that pregnancy help centers were targeted—is hugely important. There is no similar requirement (in reverse) for abortion clinics.

Of course, that proves nothing, other than that the justices are traditionally wary of compelling speech, but it is still encouraging.

As NRL News Today has written on many occasions, the 2015 law has particularly onerous provision. Locally funded pro-life medical clinics are compelled to advertise taxpayer-funded abortions. 

Specifically, the notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in “22-point type,” “distributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font” or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival,” applies to all pregnancy help medical clinics licensed by the state.

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

And as Jay Hobbs of Pregnancy Help News explains pregnancy help centers that do not offer medical services will be required to post the following signage in two “clear and conspicuous” places—“in the entrance of the facility and at least one additional area where clients wait to receive services,” as well as in “any print and digital advertising materials including Internet Web sites”.

The font required is to be “in no less than 48-point type” and will read as follows:

“This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

The absurdity of the law, particularly its reach, was captured in a back and forth between Justice Anthony Kennedy and a lawyer for the state (presumably Joshua A. Klein). 

NPR’s Nina Totenberg, pro-abortion to the core, nonetheless noted that Kennedy cited a hypothetical example of a billboard in Los Angeles with the words ‘Choose Life.’ He asked the lawyer for the state if it was paid for by an unlicensed facility if it would have to say so in large font and in multiple languages.

The lawyer for the state said that it would. For Kennedy, that seemed to be too much.

National Right to Life article continues here

Seven Powerful Quotes From ‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

By Sarah Terzo
Live Action News

“You read about me in history books, but now I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”

Norma McCorvey, also known as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, was the plaintiff that attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, used in the Texas court case that struck down all laws against abortion throughout the United States. Today, McCorvey is pro-life.

1) “The entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions.”

In an affidavit McCorvey submitted to the District Court of New Jersey in 2000, she says:

Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held.

The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court …. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. …we obtained a decision in Roe v. Wade based upon what abortion advocates wanted women to be able to do, not what women were truly capable of.

2) “I didn’t know during the Roe v. Wade case that the life of a human being was terminated.”



McCorvey became pregnant during a low point in her life. She was homeless and living in a public park, and her other two children were being raised by others. A lawyer she was speaking to about adoption referred her to Weddington and Coffee.

The lawyers allegedly fawned over McCorvey, taking her out to eat and giving her lots of attention. They complained about being unable to find the perfect plaintiff for their case to make abortion legal. They told McCorvey that she was the ideal case. According to McCorvey:

They said yes, “You’re white. You’re young, pregnant, and you want an abortion.” At that time, I didn’t know their full intent. Only that they wanted to make abortion legal and they thought I’d be a good plaintiff. I came for the food, and they led me to believe that they could help me get an abortion.

During our meeting, they questioned me, “Norma don’t you think that abortion should be legal?” Unsure, I responded that I did not know. In fact, I did not know what the term “abortion” really meant. Back in 1970, no one discussed abortion. It was taboo, and so too was the subject of abortion. The only thing I knew about the word was in the context of war movies. I had heard the word “abort” when John Wayne was flying his plane and ordered the others to “Abort the mission.” I knew “abort” meant that they were “going back”. “Abortion”, to me, meant “going back” to the condition of not being pregnant.

I never looked the word up in the dictionary until after I had already signed the affidavit. I was very naive. For their part, my lawyers lied to me about the nature of abortion. Weddington convinced me that “It’s just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period.” I didn’t know during the Roe v. Wade case that the life of a human being was terminated.

3) “The courts…I feel used me to justify legalization of terminating of the lives of over 35 million babies.”

McCorvey trusted her lawyers, and signed the affidavit of Roe v. Wade without reading it. Knowing little about abortion procedures, McCorvey believed Weddington when she told her that abortion was removing “a bit of tissue.” McCorvey explains why she later felt exploited:

Norma McCorvey's story continues