A Supreme Court abortion decision is expected any day. Here’s what you need to know.

The U.S. Supreme Court traditionally releases its major opinions in the month of June. We have already seen blockbuster rulings on LGBT employment discrimination and DACA. Next up: June Medical Services v. Russo, which will determine the fate of a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice.

Image via the Katrina Jackson for
Senate District 34 facebook page

The common-sense, bipartisan law was spearheaded by then-state representative (now state senator) Katrina Jackson (pictured), a Democrat. It is not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Instead, it seeks to harness the power of existing medical institutions to identify and stop abortionists who are especially dangerous to women. As pro-choice author William Saletan noted years ago in his chilling Back Alley series, the medical community knows full well who these shoddy abortionists are and quietly declines to work with them — but historically, they have refused to speak up for political reasons. Admitting privileges requirements make these “open secrets” truly open, and force the abortion lobby to live up to the “safe” part of its empty motto.

Side note: Any news coverage of this case that fails to mention Kevin Work is sham journalism. He’s exactly the type of abortionist that Louisiana’s law is meant to address. Read more about him here
Louisiana’s law is similar to the Texas law that the Supreme Court tragically struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted some differences when it upheld Louisiana’s law in 2018. Pro-life advocates were horrified by Hellerstedt, which prioritized abortion access and industry profits over women’s safety. Hellerstedt was a 5-3 decision, when the Court had only eight Justices due to the death of Justice Scalia. (The three in the minority were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito.) Since then, pro-abortion Justice Kennedy has retired, and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — widely believed to support the right to life — have joined the Court. 
Here are the possible outcomes to watch for in Russo, from worst to best:
  • The Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana’s law. This would mean that at least one of the Justices believed to be an anti-abortion vote is not, and that pro-life groups have received little in return for their decades of putting up with the Republican Party. If this happens, expect absolute chaos to ensue.
  • The Supreme Court upholds Louisiana’s law without overturning Hellerstedt. This would essentially ratify the Fifth Circuit’s approach. Lower courts would be instructed to consider other states’ admitting privileges laws on a case-by-case basis, depending on such factors as the number of abortionists in the state and what criteria the state’s hospitals use to grant or deny admitting privileges. 
  • The Supreme Court upholds Louisiana’s law, recognizes its past mistake, and reverses Hellerstedt. This would be a victory for women’s health and babies’ lives.
  • The Supreme Court finds that the plaintiffs lack standing. This is a long shot, so don’t get your hopes up, but a decision on the basis of standing would be huge. The legal concept of standing means that a person can’t sue merely because they dislike a law; they have to have a certain level of direct involvement. To give an obvious example, the plaintiffs in the LGBT employment discrimination cases decided earlier this month were, not surprisingly, LGBT people whose employers discriminated against them. In Russo, the plaintiffs are arguing that Louisiana’s law unduly burdens women’s right to an abortion — but the plaintiffs in Russo aren’t women, much less pregnant mothers seeking abortions and facing legal burdens. The Russo plaintiffs are abortion companies whose hired abortionists don’t have admitting privileges. Although many past cases have involved abortion companies legally standing in for abortion-seeking mothers (e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Hellerstedt), allowing that type of substitute standing in a safety regulations case creates a serious conflict of interest. Women’s desire to obtain the best possible care and avoid quacks like Kevin Work is directly at odds with abortion vendors’ desire to cut costs. If the Supreme Court finally expresses some long-overdue skepticism at the idea that abortion businesses represent women’s interests, our legal system could finally escape, or at least reduce, the influence of abortion industry money.
Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute puts it best:

A Supreme Court abortion decision is expected any day. Here’s what you need to know.

The U.S. Supreme Court traditionally releases its major opinions in the month of June. We have already seen blockbuster rulings on LGBT employment discrimination and DACA. Next up: June Medical Services v. Russo, which will determine the fate of a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice.

Image via the Katrina Jackson for
Senate District 34 facebook page

The common-sense, bipartisan law was spearheaded by then-state representative (now state senator) Katrina Jackson (pictured), a Democrat. It is not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Instead, it seeks to harness the power of existing medical institutions to identify and stop abortionists who are especially dangerous to women. As pro-choice author William Saletan noted years ago in his chilling Back Alley series, the medical community knows full well who these shoddy abortionists are and quietly declines to work with them — but historically, they have refused to speak up for political reasons. Admitting privileges requirements make these “open secrets” truly open, and force the abortion lobby to live up to the “safe” part of its empty motto.

Side note: Any news coverage of this case that fails to mention Kevin Work is sham journalism. He’s exactly the type of abortionist that Louisiana’s law is meant to address. Read more about him here
Louisiana’s law is similar to the Texas law that the Supreme Court tragically struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted some differences when it upheld Louisiana’s law in 2018. Pro-life advocates were horrified by Hellerstedt, which prioritized abortion access and industry profits over women’s safety. Hellerstedt was a 5-3 decision, when the Court had only eight Justices due to the death of Justice Scalia. (The three in the minority were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito.) Since then, pro-abortion Justice Kennedy has retired, and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — widely believed to support the right to life — have joined the Court. 
Here are the possible outcomes to watch for in Russo, from worst to best:
  • The Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana’s law. This would mean that at least one of the Justices believed to be an anti-abortion vote is not, and that pro-life groups have received little in return for their decades of putting up with the Republican Party. If this happens, expect absolute chaos to ensue.
  • The Supreme Court upholds Louisiana’s law without overturning Hellerstedt. This would essentially ratify the Fifth Circuit’s approach. Lower courts would be instructed to consider other states’ admitting privileges laws on a case-by-case basis, depending on such factors as the number of abortionists in the state and what criteria the state’s hospitals use to grant or deny admitting privileges. 
  • The Supreme Court upholds Louisiana’s law, recognizes its past mistake, and reverses Hellerstedt. This would be a victory for women’s health and babies’ lives.
  • The Supreme Court finds that the plaintiffs lack standing. This is a long shot, so don’t get your hopes up, but a decision on the basis of standing would be huge. The legal concept of standing means that a person can’t sue merely because they dislike a law; they have to have a certain level of direct involvement. To give an obvious example, the plaintiffs in the LGBT employment discrimination cases decided earlier this month were, not surprisingly, LGBT people whose employers discriminated against them. In Russo, the plaintiffs are arguing that Louisiana’s law unduly burdens women’s right to an abortion — but the plaintiffs in Russo aren’t women, much less pregnant mothers seeking abortions and facing legal burdens. The Russo plaintiffs are abortion companies whose hired abortionists don’t have admitting privileges. Although many past cases have involved abortion companies legally standing in for abortion-seeking mothers (e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Hellerstedt), allowing that type of substitute standing in a safety regulations case creates a serious conflict of interest. Women’s desire to obtain the best possible care and avoid quacks like Kevin Work is directly at odds with abortion vendors’ desire to cut costs. If the Supreme Court finally expresses some long-overdue skepticism at the idea that abortion businesses represent women’s interests, our legal system could finally escape, or at least reduce, the influence of abortion industry money.
Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute puts it best:

Arizona bans funding to Planned Parenthood

Yesterday Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law HB 2800, known as the Whole Women’s Health Funding Priority Act.  HB 2800 is intended to prevent indirect monies from being applied to organizations that provide “nonfederally qualified abortions,” but some groups believe the bill’s effects are unclear. Arizona state law already prevents direct taxpayer funding of abortions.

The director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Arizona claims her organization currently provides family planning services to about 25,000 women using federal funds and to about 4,000 women using Arizona’s Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood Arizona’s President, Bryan Howard, expressed concern that HB 2800 could force people to go without healthcare services.

This is a familiar story.  One side seeks to prevent any funding–direct or indirect–from going to organizations that provide abortions.  The other side claims such a move cannot be done without removing people’s access to non-abortion healthcare services.  We ask for your perspective, dear Reader:

  • Which is more important: ensuring people–especially low income people–have the greatest possible access to non-abortion healthcare, or 
    preventing indirect tax dollars from funding abortions? Why?
  • What are the best methods to prevent tax dollars from funding abortions while simultaneously ensuring people get equal or improved access to non-abortion healthcare?
  • Is there a need for a new or expanded network of abortion-free healthcare organizations to supplant Planned Parenthood?  
  • If so, what is one small step an individual pro-lifer could take to help create this network?

Protect Life Act Passed in the House

As many of you know, the Protect Life Act was reviewed yesterday by congress. The good news is that it was passed by a vote of 251-172 and is now on it’s way to the Senate. Now begins the difficult part of passing this bill. Will the Senate pass the Protect Life Act as well? After all we should be able to agree that elective abortions shouldn’t be funded in Health Care. Why? Because the majority of Americans do not want to pay for it. 


Here comes a even bigger struggle: President Obama has already released a statement that he would veto the Protect Life Act in the event it makes it to his desk. Clearly President Obama has no regard for the majority of the American people’s wishes on this subject and he continues to push a rather pro-abortion agenda. 


Some of the basics of what the Protect Life Act will do. 



  • Uphold the Hyde Amendment which prevents any PPACA funds (tax dollars) from paying for abortion (except in the cases of rape/incest or threat to the mother’s life).
  • Subsidized federal funds will not be able to cover abortions that step outside of the Hyde Amendment restrictions. 
  • Conscience protections upheld so that health care providers who will not take part in abortion receive federal funding without discrimination.  
  • Individuals, states, and local governments will have to purchase a separate rider to cover elective abortions. This will only be allowed through private funds, not your tax dollars.





How do you think this will turn out? 


For the Dignity of the born and unborn,

Timmerie Millington






Action Alert: Stop the Birth Control Mandate

On August 1, 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services decided to mandate coverage of birth control, surgical sterilization, and abortifacients in all private heathcare plans.


Are you a tax payer? Do you support Birth Control, Abortifacients (a drug or agent that causes abortion), and surgical sterilization? Well you’ll be providing these services for millions of Americana’s to take advantage of at any time. Despite religious or moral beliefs you’re paying for it, and patients do not even have a co-pay for these services.


While I was sitting in urgent care the other day I couldn’t get over the fact that the woman in front of me was 19 weeks pregnant and had to pay a $15 co-pay in order to see a doctor after she fell, couldn’t walk, and was having severe back and stomach pain. While in contrast, August 1st Health and Human Services (HHS) mandated that private health plans will cover “preventative services”: contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients with NO co-pay or out of pocket expenses for these services.


Now, I see nothing wrong with co-pays. But I find it ridiculous that a woman would not have to pay a dime to be sterilized, chemically abort her child, or prevent her body from naturally beginning human life while a woman who is pregnant, and severely hurt, has to pay to even get in the door at urgent care.


Please defend the consciences of millions of Americans who do not support abortifaceints, contraception, and sterilization. This will only take a few minutes:


  1. Health and Human Services is accepting comments on the issue at hand until September 30th. Please send an email through NCHLA’s action center in opposition to this mandate.
  2. Post the link to this article (**) on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites so that others can take action as well.

Standing In Defence of the Voiceless,

Timmerie Millington



Read Timmerie’s Bio

New Live Action Video — Do the people need Planned Parenthood?

[Editor’s note: This is the first post by our newest contributor, Timmerie!]

Do the people need Planned Parenthood?


Are the Medicaid funded services that were provided at Planned Parenthood unavailable at other medical care providers in Indiana?


I encourage you to ask yourself these questions while watching the latest undercover video released by Live Action:




Does the de-funding of Planed Parenthood in Indiana hurt the people of Indiana or are they still able to receive the care they need?


In May of this year the House, Senate, and governor of Indiana passed a bill de-funding Planned Parenthood in their state. Why? Planned Parenthood has been exposed numerous times over the years, and just this year Live Action has released over 8 undercover investigations exposing the lies and illegal activities of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was not de-funded because of moral religious or beliefs, or because they perform abortions; but because of their lies, involvement it human trafficking, covering up of sexual offenders, lack of reporting sexual abuse of minors as young at 13, and much more. (Learn more at the links below)


Immediately after Indiana de-funded Planned Parenthood the Obama Administration threatened to strip Medicaid funding in Indiana.


“The Obama administration is holding patients’ health hostage in return for funding the largest abortion provider in the country,” said Lila Rose 0f Live Action. “This abuse of power is a threat to every other state – that no matter the cost or consequences, this Administration will sacrifice healthcare for the needy to continue pouring tax dollars into Planned Parenthood.”


The above video was made to help society understand the people will not be hurt by the de-funding of Planned Parenthood these services can be received at 800 other locations.


Do you think Planned Parenthood was justifiably de-funded? Should president Obama and his staff be intervening, or is he once again protecting Planned Parenthood?


Sign the petition now to stand with Indiana in de-funding Planned Parenthood.


Be sure to share this video with you colleagues to help them understand why Planned Parenthood should be de-funded.


Standing In Defence of the Voiceless,

Timmerie Millington

Illegal late term abortions
Donations Accepted to Perform Abortions on Black Babies
Gives False Medical Information–Rosa Acuna Project
Mona Lisa Project
Sex Trafficking
Protecting Pedophiles
Racist Agenda
Infanticide

In their own words: why abortion is not health care

Today is World Health Day. To mark the occassion, The A Word has suggested that pro-life blogs write on the theme “Abortion Is Not Health Care.”

The central objections to abortion are based upon the human rights of the unborn child, as well they should be. This means that secondary arguments are often overlooked; one of these is the objection that abortion corrupts medicine.

The Hippocratic oath famously commands that a physician shall “Do No Harm.” In modern ethical terms, this is the principle of non-malfeasance. The classical Hippocratic oath also specifically bans the use of abortifacients.

At most medical schools, the Hippocratic oath has been replaced by a more recent version which, shockingly, does not require a commitment to do no harm. It does, however, include the statement “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

Abortion differs from legitimate health care in a number of significant ways. It is the only “medical” practice that is considered “failed” when it does not do lethal harm. There is often no meaningful doctor-patient relationship. Abortion centers have shown that they cannot be trusted to provide informed consent. In short, abortion is fundamentally incompatible with basic medical values. Abortionists and their employees know this to be true– and in their more self-aware moments, many have admitted it:

No doctor, for ethical, moral or honest reasons wants to do nothing but abortions…” ~Edward Eichner

“You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular….she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby…” ~Abortionist Szenes

You are doing a destructive process. Arms, legs, chests come out in the forceps. It’s not a sight for everybody.” ~William Benbow Thompson

“You certainly know that you will start with a living fetus and that it will be dead by the end of the procedure. But when you start a second-trimester abortion, you don’t know when the fetus will die. Every patient is different. ~L. Carhart

“It’s necessary to remember that these days abortion is done on request and therefore not a procedure you undertake in the interest of the fetus…” ~Gordon Douglas

“I dismember the fetus – pull it apart limb from limb – and remove it piece by piece and two hours later I’ve forgotten them.” ~Phillip Bennett

“This can burn you out very, very quickly…not so much by the physical labor as the emotional part of what’s going on. When you do an ultrasound, particularly if you have children, and you see a fetus there, kicking, moving, living, doing things that your own child does, bringing it’s thumb to its mouth, and things like that- it’s difficult.” ~Ed Jones

“We’ve come a long way since my mother’s time. The idea of abortion to save the mothers’ life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure- but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.” ~Don Sloan

“[I’ve seen women] who have just had an abortion … lie in the recovery room and cry, ‘I’ve just killed my baby. I’ve just killed my baby.‘ I don’t know what to say to these women. Part of me thinks, ‘Maybe they’re right.'” ~Anonymous nurse, quoted in American Medical News

Abortion has no place in the healing profession. I applaud physicians of conscience who are attempting to practice ethically in a field that has abandoned its responsibilities toward its youngest patients. On this World Health Day, let us renew our commitment to ending abortion and restoring the integrity of medicine.

Midweek News Roundup: 04/06/11

Did someone order a midweek news roundup today? No? Well here’s one anyway.

Domestic News: A bill in Montana which would have prevented federal / state money for the recent health care reform act’s health care exchanges to be used for abortions was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D). Schweitzer said that “…the measure violates Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a right to privacy and access to reproductive health care.” In Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell (R) offered an amendment to the State Budget which would do the same thing as the aforementioned Montana law. The amendment is facing opposition by “abortion rights” supporters. A law in Florida requiring the viewing of an ultrasound prior to the performance of an abortion just made its way out of a State Senate committee. A similar measure was vetoed last year by former Governor Charlie Crist (I).

International News: With the upcoming parliamentary elections in Canada, Prime Minister Harper (C) has said that his Government, if they receive the majority, would not propose legislation to change the current laws on abortion. Now, this does not prevent individual MPs from proposing the law, but it does show that Harper does not seem willing to rock the boat on this issue just yet. Harper has been on the record as being pro-life in the past. In one of the oddest stories I’ve reported on here, in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro state Governor Sergio Cabral said the following when arguing in support of legalizing abortion:

“Who hasn’t had a mistress that needed an abortion?”

Word’s can not begin to describe how wrong that statement is on so many different levels.

Obamacare: What’s our next step?

If SecularProLife.org proves anything, it’s that the pro-life movement is far from monolithic. I do believe that our diversity is, on the whole, beneficial. However, we have to be careful to avoid infighting. During the initial debate over Obamacare, I was disappointed by the rift that developed regarding pro-life Democrats.

Republicans campaigned very successfully on a “repeal and replace” platform, and Obamacare is back on the table. I don’t want us to repeat our same mistakes this time around. So here, as I see it, are the major areas of agreement and disagreement.

Areas of agreement:
1) Our current health care system has serious flaws. We would all like to see more people insured, especially children. There’s room for debate about the best solution, but no one seriously disputes that there is a problem.
2) Health care reform should not involve taxpayer funding of abortion. There is broad pro-life support for legislation that would clarify and codify Obama’s Executive Order. Even the Catholic Health Association, which denied that Obamacare contained abortion funding to begin with, thinks that this legislation couldn’t hurt.

Areas of disagreement:
1) Should we try to improve Obamacare, or do we need to scrap it and start over? Conservatives advocate a policy of “repeal and replace,” but do not have the votes to repeal. On the other hand, the liberal pro-life opinion is that there is a lot of good in the bill, and that keeping most of it intact is the best way to promote life and health. (This is also the apparent position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
2) Supposing a “repeal and replace” view, what should be the replacement?
3) Let’s not forget about Gunner and other people with disabilities. The National Right to Life Committee has been particularly vocal in its concern rationing is inevitable under Obamacare. With or without Obamacare, how can we practically ensure that society’s “undesirables” aren’t sent to the end of the line?

Please discuss.

Quick News Roundup: 12/02/10

Happy December and Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish readers.

Domestic News: A federal judge rejected a lawsuit by Liberty University regarding the recently passed federal healthcare overhaul stating that they did not see enough evidence to sustain their claim that the legislation would require abortion funding. Dr. Leroy Carhart is officially moving to Maryland to perform late term abortions. Following Nebraska‘s recent legislation prohibiting most abortions after 20 weeks, Dr. Carhart decided to move his operation to Maryland. As a Maryland resident, I’m outraged and hope locals fight to keep the disgusting procedure out of my home state. Pro-Life groups, including the Americans United for Life Action, are publicly lobbying Republican House Leadership to prevent Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) from becoming the new Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee citing his views on life issues. The committee’s scope can be reviewed here. Upton’s rankings by abortion issues groups can be found here.

International News: Argentina is having its first debate on legalizing abortion in the nation’s history. 50 lawmakers in the Argentinian House of Deputies has co-sponsored legislation which would legalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy. The Commission of Penal Legislation is set to look at the legislation when the next legislative session begins. Debate continues in Canada regarding Roxanne’s Law, a law to prohibit coerced abortions. Women have been testifying in favor of it before Parliament.

Discussion Topic: Sorry, my brain’s a little fried with all the traveling I’ve been doing lately. Not sure what discussion topic to post – so take this to be an open discussion topic. Discuss the news, the topics I’ve brought up, or anything else you want to discuss.