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:

Pro-life agnostic running for Senate in Missouri

Austin Petersen, a Missouri Republican candidate challenging Senator Claire McCaskill, has a fantastic article in the Springfield News-Leader entitled “Why I’m a Pro-Life Agnostic.” The first half is devoted to how he came to question the existence of god—which, tragically, involves the death of his mother at the hands of a corrupt pharmacist. He then turns to the secular sources of his pro-life convictions:

I’m passionately pro-life and believe that Roe v. Wade was one of the cruelest, most heinous decisions ever made by our nation’s leadership.

It’s also one of the most hypocritical decisions, one that goes against the very fiber of who we are as a nation. The Declaration of Independence lays it all out quite clearly. Some truths are (or at least should be) self-evident: that we are all equal, no matter our parentage, race, class or age and that we all have a right not only to liberty and to pursue happiness, but to life itself. History judges societies based on how they treat their most vulnerable members. And when future generations remember that nearly a million abortions occur each year in this country, they will rightly judge us not only for our lack of compassion but for the way in which we betrayed our founding principles.

My pro-life position isn’t just ideological, however; it’s also quite personal. When I was a child, my parents met a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and was considering abortion. They persuaded her to carry the child to term and offered to adopt after she was born. The woman agreed, and thanks to her courageous decision, I have a wonderful sister named Jodi.

That would be enough for any person to reject abortion—but Petersen also credits us!

Petersen knows that he has an uphill battle ahead; very few people have ever been elected to Congress as open nonbelievers. “But,” Petersen writes, “I can’t in good conscience say that I do believe or that I don’t believe when that’s not the case. I have chosen to be completely transparent and honest with the people of Missouri, even if that means I may lose some support.”

Republican primary voters will choose between Petersen, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, and several others on August 7. The winner will face Senator McCaskill on November 6.

Pro-life agnostic running for Senate in Missouri

Austin Petersen, a Missouri Republican candidate challenging Senator Claire McCaskill, has a fantastic article in the Springfield News-Leader entitled “Why I’m a Pro-Life Agnostic.” The first half is devoted to how he came to question the existence of god—which, tragically, involves the death of his mother at the hands of a corrupt pharmacist. He then turns to the secular sources of his pro-life convictions:

I’m passionately pro-life and believe that Roe v. Wade was one of the cruelest, most heinous decisions ever made by our nation’s leadership.

It’s also one of the most hypocritical decisions, one that goes against the very fiber of who we are as a nation. The Declaration of Independence lays it all out quite clearly. Some truths are (or at least should be) self-evident: that we are all equal, no matter our parentage, race, class or age and that we all have a right not only to liberty and to pursue happiness, but to life itself. History judges societies based on how they treat their most vulnerable members. And when future generations remember that nearly a million abortions occur each year in this country, they will rightly judge us not only for our lack of compassion but for the way in which we betrayed our founding principles.

My pro-life position isn’t just ideological, however; it’s also quite personal. When I was a child, my parents met a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and was considering abortion. They persuaded her to carry the child to term and offered to adopt after she was born. The woman agreed, and thanks to her courageous decision, I have a wonderful sister named Jodi.

That would be enough for any person to reject abortion—but Petersen also credits us!

Petersen knows that he has an uphill battle ahead; very few people have ever been elected to Congress as open nonbelievers. “But,” Petersen writes, “I can’t in good conscience say that I do believe or that I don’t believe when that’s not the case. I have chosen to be completely transparent and honest with the people of Missouri, even if that means I may lose some support.”

Republican primary voters will choose between Petersen, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, and several others on August 7. The winner will face Senator McCaskill on November 6.

Three Major News Items Today

Mississippi passes 15-week abortion limit: Last night, Mississippi governor Phil Bryant signed a law limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, except to save the life or health of the mother. Here, for reference, is what a 15-week-old human looks like (via the Endowment for Human Development):

While much media coverage noted that the new law is exceptionally “tough” or “strict,” that’s only true if you have a narrow, USA-centric frame of reference. Mississippi’s 15-week limit is mundane in the context of other developed nations like Spain, France, Germany, and Belgium (14 weeks LMP); Italy (12 weeks LMP); Portugal (10 weeks LMP); and Ireland, Malta, and Poland (right to life recognized without regard to age).

Mississippi’s sole abortion business has already filed suit to block the law. It will likely remain unenforced while the case works its way through the court system. The current Supreme Court is 5-4 in favor of abortion, so the law will only be upheld if a Justice soon retires or dies.

Illinois Primaries: Both the Democratic and Republican primary races in Illinois, being held today, are critical for pro-life advocates. On the Democratic side, abortion extremists have targeted Dan Lipinski, one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives. His challenger, Marie Newman, is funded primarily by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Pro-Life Action League, Susan B. Anthony List, Democrats for Life, and many others are working phones and knocking on doors for Rep. Lipinski. Illinois has an open primary; pro-lifers of all stripes, including the independent and unaffiliated, who live in the 3rd Congressional District are strongly encouraged to cross over and vote for Lipinski. We must beat back those in the Democratic Party who would impose an abortion litmus test and treat the fundamental human right to life as a partisan issue.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Illinois primary voters have the opportunity to boot Governor Bruce Rauner from office. Gov. Rauner is infamous for signing a bill to destroy the Hyde Amendment in Illinois, introducing widespread taxpayer subsidies for the abortion industry. He betrayed not only those pro-lifers who voted for him, but the more than 144,000 Illinoisans who owe their very lives to Hyde Amendment protections. His primary opponent, Jeanne Ives, is an unapologetic pro-life advocate.

Today at the Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. NIFLA is an umbrella organization for pregnancy resource centers and clinics, who are challenging a California law that forces them to advertise abortions. Pro-life advocates from across the nation (including our own Terrisa Bukovinac, flying all the way from San Francisco!) are convening outside the Court this morning to stand up for life and freedom of speech. It’s going to be an incredible rally, and if you can’t make it in person, you can watch it live at the March for Life facebook page.

Three Major News Items Today

Mississippi passes 15-week abortion limit: Last night, Mississippi governor Phil Bryant signed a law limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, except to save the life or health of the mother. Here, for reference, is what a 15-week-old human looks like (via the Endowment for Human Development):

While much media coverage noted that the new law is exceptionally “tough” or “strict,” that’s only true if you have a narrow, USA-centric frame of reference. Mississippi’s 15-week limit is mundane in the context of other developed nations like Spain, France, Germany, and Belgium (14 weeks LMP); Italy (12 weeks LMP); Portugal (10 weeks LMP); and Ireland, Malta, and Poland (right to life recognized without regard to age).

Mississippi’s sole abortion business has already filed suit to block the law. It will likely remain unenforced while the case works its way through the court system. The current Supreme Court is 5-4 in favor of abortion, so the law will only be upheld if a Justice soon retires or dies.

Illinois Primaries: Both the Democratic and Republican primary races in Illinois, being held today, are critical for pro-life advocates. On the Democratic side, abortion extremists have targeted Dan Lipinski, one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives. His challenger, Marie Newman, is funded primarily by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Pro-Life Action League, Susan B. Anthony List, Democrats for Life, and many others are working phones and knocking on doors for Rep. Lipinski. Illinois has an open primary; pro-lifers of all stripes, including the independent and unaffiliated, who live in the 3rd Congressional District are strongly encouraged to cross over and vote for Lipinski. We must beat back those in the Democratic Party who would impose an abortion litmus test and treat the fundamental human right to life as a partisan issue.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Illinois primary voters have the opportunity to boot Governor Bruce Rauner from office. Gov. Rauner is infamous for signing a bill to destroy the Hyde Amendment in Illinois, introducing widespread taxpayer subsidies for the abortion industry. He betrayed not only those pro-lifers who voted for him, but the more than 144,000 Illinoisans who owe their very lives to Hyde Amendment protections. His primary opponent, Jeanne Ives, is an unapologetic pro-life advocate.

Today at the Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. NIFLA is an umbrella organization for pregnancy resource centers and clinics, who are challenging a California law that forces them to advertise abortions. Pro-life advocates from across the nation (including our own Terrisa Bukovinac, flying all the way from San Francisco!) are convening outside the Court this morning to stand up for life and freedom of speech. It’s going to be an incredible rally, and if you can’t make it in person, you can watch it live at the March for Life facebook page.

“I believe you’ve killed someone, but I will fight for your right to do it!”

Pro-choice Democrat Conor Lamb is the newest member of the House of Representatives, having squeaked out a special election win in Pennsylvania with just 641 more votes than his Republican opponent. The race was seen as a referendum on President Trump, who won the conservative district by 19 points in 2016.

There has been no shortage of commentary about what this means for the 2018 midterms, and in particular, whether Lambs’ “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice” schtick should be replicated by Democrats in other red districts. But much of this coverage has ignored a key variable, namely, the reason Pennsylvania was having a special election in the first place.

Remember Tim Murphy? He held the district and was forced to resign after he was revealed to be Lamb’s polar opposite: politically pro-life, but personally pro-choice. Pro-life organizations and voters alike were outraged when it came to light that Murphy had not only had an extramarital affair, but had encouraged his mistress to have an abortion. (She turned out not to be pregnant.)

There is no data to suggest that the district’s residents suddenly abandoned their pro-life principles en masse, but such a betrayal from a traditionally pro-life candidate could have made Lamb’s “personally pro-life” pitch more appealing. That doesn’t make either Lamb or his voters correct, of course—Lamb’s claim that he must vote pro-choice for reasons of church-state separation is particularly laughable—but I can understand why voters might have felt their vote wouldn’t necessarily lead to a truly pro-life legislator anyway, so why bother.

Abortion extremists, of course, are busy eating their own. At Slate, Christina Cauterucci writes that “personally pro-life” politicians have been known to back Choose Life license plates (the horror!) and popular, common-sense limitations like parental consent for abortions on minors and prohibitions on taxpayer subsidies to the abortion industry. Cauterucci also makes this interesting point:

By broadcasting his belief that, lawmaking aside, a fertilized egg is a human life, he’s essentially scolding women who’ve had abortions. “I believe you’ve killed someone, but I will fight for your right to do it!” may be the best progressives can hope for from those who are morally opposed to abortion, but it’s also a good way to alienate people on both sides of the issue.

While I obviously disagree with Cauterucci on the morality of abortion, she’s hit upon a critical insight here. In recent years, the abortion movement has been trying to distance itself from its traditionally anti-science lines of argument (e.g. “it’s just a clump of cells”) in favor of a more modern approach that acknowledges the lethal reality of abortion but justifies it anyway. Salon‘s 2013 article “So what if abortion ends life?” is a paradigmatic example. If Cauterucci is right that “I believe you’ve killed someone, but I will fight for your right to do it” alienates people, what messaging options does the abortion lobby have left?

The fundamental problem is that, in the long run, there is no way to both be honest and portray abortion in an attractive light. Abortion kills. Abortion targets the most vulnerable members of our human family. We must demand politicians who wholeheartedly oppose abortion—both personally, and politically.

“I believe you’ve killed someone, but I will fight for your right to do it!”

Pro-choice Democrat Conor Lamb is the newest member of the House of Representatives, having squeaked out a special election win in Pennsylvania with just 641 more votes than his Republican opponent. The race was seen as a referendum on President Trump, who won the conservative district by 19 points in 2016.

There has been no shortage of commentary about what this means for the 2018 midterms, and in particular, whether Lambs’ “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice” schtick should be replicated by Democrats in other red districts. But much of this coverage has ignored a key variable, namely, the reason Pennsylvania was having a special election in the first place.

Remember Tim Murphy? He held the district and was forced to resign after he was revealed to be Lamb’s polar opposite: politically pro-life, but personally pro-choice. Pro-life organizations and voters alike were outraged when it came to light that Murphy had not only had an extramarital affair, but had encouraged his mistress to have an abortion. (She turned out not to be pregnant.)

There is no data to suggest that the district’s residents suddenly abandoned their pro-life principles en masse, but such a betrayal from a traditionally pro-life candidate could have made Lamb’s “personally pro-life” pitch more appealing. That doesn’t make either Lamb or his voters correct, of course—Lamb’s claim that he must vote pro-choice for reasons of church-state separation is particularly laughable—but I can understand why voters might have felt their vote wouldn’t necessarily lead to a truly pro-life legislator anyway, so why bother.

Abortion extremists, of course, are busy eating their own. At Slate, Christina Cauterucci writes that “personally pro-life” politicians have been known to back Choose Life license plates (the horror!) and popular, common-sense limitations like parental consent for abortions on minors and prohibitions on taxpayer subsidies to the abortion industry. Cauterucci also makes this interesting point:

By broadcasting his belief that, lawmaking aside, a fertilized egg is a human life, he’s essentially scolding women who’ve had abortions. “I believe you’ve killed someone, but I will fight for your right to do it!” may be the best progressives can hope for from those who are morally opposed to abortion, but it’s also a good way to alienate people on both sides of the issue.

While I obviously disagree with Cauterucci on the morality of abortion, she’s hit upon a critical insight here. In recent years, the abortion movement has been trying to distance itself from its traditionally anti-science lines of argument (e.g. “it’s just a clump of cells”) in favor of a more modern approach that acknowledges the lethal reality of abortion but justifies it anyway. Salon‘s 2013 article “So what if abortion ends life?” is a paradigmatic example. If Cauterucci is right that “I believe you’ve killed someone, but I will fight for your right to do it” alienates people, what messaging options does the abortion lobby have left?

The fundamental problem is that, in the long run, there is no way to both be honest and portray abortion in an attractive light. Abortion kills. Abortion targets the most vulnerable members of our human family. We must demand politicians who wholeheartedly oppose abortion—both personally, and politically.

Rep. Ryan announces tax dollars will be diverted from Planned Parenthood to other providers

Yesterday, Representative Paul Ryan announced that, as expected, the next federal budget will defund Planned Parenthood. Cue claims from major pro-choice organizations and your well-meaning facebook friends that funding for breast cancer screenings, birth control, STD testing, etc. is being cut and we must hate women.

The truth is that the amount of money allocated to women’s health and where that money is allocated are two completely different questions. The amount isn’t changing. I repeat, funding for women’s health services is not being cut. Instead of going to Planned Parenthood, the money will go to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). FQHCs provide affordable care, accept Medicaid, and have vastly more locations than Planned Parenthood in every state. You can find your local FQHC here.

By spreading the myth that contraception and breast cancer screenings will no longer be available to low-income women, the abortion lobby is misleading the public and discouraging low-income women from getting care that is, in fact, available to them. The organizations and spokespeople making these false claims should be ashamed of themselves. Mainstream media outlets that merely report on “defunding Planned Parenthood,” without explaining where the money will actually go, aren’t helping.

The mindset on display by abortion lobby groups is incredibly disturbing. They’re trying to manufacture a monopoly by pure force of publicity. If Planned Parenthood can’t do it, nobody else can. If they truly cared about women’s health, they’d be making a concerted effort to point women to alternatives to Planned Parenthood and make the transition smooth. Instead, they’re being as obstructionist as possible and pushing women away from getting the healthcare they need at FQHCs.

So it’s up to us. Abortion lobby groups are lying on purpose, but your pro-choice facebook friends probably aren’t. Politely correct the record. Share the good news that there is no funding cut and share the link to the FQHC map. Social media is a powerful tool. Let’s make sure the voice of truth is the loudest!!

Rep. Ryan announces tax dollars will be diverted from Planned Parenthood to other providers

Yesterday, Representative Paul Ryan announced that, as expected, the next federal budget will defund Planned Parenthood. Cue claims from major pro-choice organizations and your well-meaning facebook friends that funding for breast cancer screenings, birth control, STD testing, etc. is being cut and we must hate women.

The truth is that the amount of money allocated to women’s health and where that money is allocated are two completely different questions. The amount isn’t changing. I repeat, funding for women’s health services is not being cut. Instead of going to Planned Parenthood, the money will go to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). FQHCs provide affordable care, accept Medicaid, and have vastly more locations than Planned Parenthood in every state. You can find your local FQHC here.

By spreading the myth that contraception and breast cancer screenings will no longer be available to low-income women, the abortion lobby is misleading the public and discouraging low-income women from getting care that is, in fact, available to them. The organizations and spokespeople making these false claims should be ashamed of themselves. Mainstream media outlets that merely report on “defunding Planned Parenthood,” without explaining where the money will actually go, aren’t helping.

The mindset on display by abortion lobby groups is incredibly disturbing. They’re trying to manufacture a monopoly by pure force of publicity. If Planned Parenthood can’t do it, nobody else can. If they truly cared about women’s health, they’d be making a concerted effort to point women to alternatives to Planned Parenthood and make the transition smooth. Instead, they’re being as obstructionist as possible and pushing women away from getting the healthcare they need at FQHCs.

So it’s up to us. Abortion lobby groups are lying on purpose, but your pro-choice facebook friends probably aren’t. Politely correct the record. Share the good news that there is no funding cut and share the link to the FQHC map. Social media is a powerful tool. Let’s make sure the voice of truth is the loudest!!