In 2013, the Charlotte Lozier Institute published a report titled, “The Adoption Tax Credit: Progress and Prospects for Expansion.” The report both outlines the history of the adoption tax credit at the federal level and analyzes the number of states that provide some form of tax relief for adoption. Since the report was published, the federal adoption tax credit has continued to increase in dollar amount and is utilized by tens of thousands of Americans pursuing adoption each year. In addition, several states have created or expanded adoption tax credits at the state level, helping to offset adoption costs for American families.
In its most recent annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America makes two fundamental claims, both of which are directly relevant to the question involving continued government funding for its services, approximately $555 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. These claims are:
• First, that Planned Parenthood health centers are “an irreplaceable component of our country’s healthcare system”, and;
• Second, that Planned Parenthood provides “lifesaving care.”
On July 20, 2017, The Heritage Foundation published the fourth installment of its annual Index of Culture and Opportunity (“Index”). The Index is an exercise in civil society that tracks and analyzes data that affects freedom and opportunity. Heritage writers explore three indicators: (1) cultural indicators, (2) poverty and dependence indicators, and (3) general opportunity indicators. Among the cultural indicators, Heritage analyzes America’s abortion rate.
Pregnancy help centers (PHCs) have won a victory in their struggle against oppressive regulations.
At issue is a 2016 Illinois law regulating physicians and other health care personnel. Plaintiffs, including the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), challenged the law, arguing, in the words of a federal district court, that it “compels [PHCs] to tell pregnant women the names of other doctors they believe offer abortions, and compels them to tell pregnant women that abortion has ‘benefits’ and is a ‘treatment option’ for pregnancy.”
Oregon lawmakers have passed a bill that would force health benefit plans offered in the state to provide coverage for abortion and voluntary sterilization.
The bill, known as HB 3391, also would require health benefit plans to cover any contraceptive drug, device, or product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As this Lozier paper explains, some contraceptives can also cause abortions.
State abortion reporting provides a valuable perspective on abortion trends throughout the country. In particular, the Commonwealth of Virginia’s most recent report of abortion by facility, released by the Virginia Department of Health with data for 2015, offers a helpful overview of the numbers of abortions performed by each facility in the state. As Planned Parenthood fights for continued federal funding by insisting that abortion plays only a small part in its total health care services, Virginia’s information is especially relevant.
Oklahoma’s annual abortion report serves as proof that state abortion reports can be both comprehensive and timely. Out of the 43 states that publish annual abortion reports, Oklahoma is one of only nine to have published its 2016 annual report by June of 2017. At the same time, Oklahoma’s 40-page report on abortion remains one of the most exhaustive in the nation.
This map shows the states that have passed legislation limiting abortion based on the unborn child’s ability to feel pain by 20 weeks.
Politifact-checks are almost never the last word, and the latest one from Politifact Georgia criticizing Congressman Barry Loudermilk for his assessment of women’s real healthcare alternatives to Planned Parenthood is a case in point.
Charlotte Lozier Institute submitted a “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 20 in support of pregnancy help centers (PHCs). The PHCs have challenged a California law, arguing that it forces them to post contact information for a county office that refers for abortion and burdens their ability to advertise their services.
Margaret H. “Peggy” Hartshorn, Ph.D., served as President of Heartbeat International from 1993 to 2016 and is now the group’s chairman of the board. Under Peggy’s leadership, Heartbeat has grown to become the most expansive network of pregnancy help ministries in the world, with over 2,000 affiliated pregnancy help centers, medical clinics, maternity homes, adoption agencies, and abortion recovery programs located in 48 countries on six continents. In this interview, she discusses her lengthy experience operating and managing a network of life-affirming pregnancy help centers both in the United States and abroad.
People of all backgrounds and political perspectives, including on the underlying question of legal abortion, appreciate what pregnancy help centers accomplish. Giving these entities room to work should be a given as our nation continues its long debate over what is best for women and the unborn.
Tara Sander Lee, Ph.D., is a Molecular and Cell Biologist with over 15 years of experience in academic research and healthcare. In this interview, she discusses genetic testing for diagnosis and treatment of children and the ethical and scientific issues surrounding the use of fetal tissue procured from abortion for research.
March 21 was World Down Syndrome Day. Fitting, then, that on the same day Oklahoma’s House of Representatives passed its Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2017.
Kristi Burton Brown, J.D., is an attorney focusing on First Amendment and sanctity of life issues. In this interview, she discusses the legal defensibility and value of pain-capable abortion prohibitions, as well as fetal disposition and laws governing that practice.
Missouri HB 908 would prohibit abortions after the point at which unborn children are capable of feeling pain. Kristi Burton Brown, J.D., submitted the following written testimony in support of HB 908.
Missouri HB 194 would regulate the disposition of fetal remains from abortion and ensure greater transparency and accountability on the part of abortion facilities. Kristi Burton Brown, J.D., submitted the following written testimony in support of HB 194.
Last December a Canadian appeals judge ruled against the appearance of a provocative pro-life ad campaign on the exterior of municipal buses in Grand Prairie, Alberta. Justice C. S. Anderson stated in her decision, “Expression of this kind may lead to emotional responses from the various people who make use of public transit and other uses of the road, creating a hostile and uncomfortable environment.”
In 2015, the Congress of the United States adopted and sent to the President legislation whose effect would have been to reallocate funds from one family planning provider, Planned Parenthood, and redirect those funds to community health centers that typically offer family planning, but do not offer abortions.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, the Texas Committee of Health and Human Services held a hearing regarding Texas Senate Bill 415 (SB 415). SB 415 prohibits dismemberment abortions, in which a person, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, dismembers the unborn child and extracts the unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus. Charlotte Lozier Institute Associate Scholar Sheila Page, D.O., submitted the following written testimony in support of SB 415.
Sheila Page, D.O., is board certified in Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine and Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy, and treats a wide spectrum of patients from the newborn to the elderly, including patients with irreversible and terminal illness. Dr. Page has a special interest in children with disabilities, particularly those whose burden of care is difficult and who have been given little hope for a better quality of life. In this interview, she discusses palliative care and the science of fetal pain.
A bill prohibiting doctors from issuing prescriptions for drugs to cause abortion via remote video or telephone conference passed Utah’s House Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Standing Committee on January 30.
On Thursday, February 9, 2017, the Colorado House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee held a hearing regarding House Bill 1086 (HB 1086), the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act. HB 1086 provides that prior to initiating a chemical abortion, a physician must alert the woman to the fact that it may be possible to reverse the abortion should she change her mind and that information on the possibility of reversal is available in state-prepared materials.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, the Texas Committee of Health and Human Services held a hearing regarding Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8). SB 8 prohibits partial-birth abortions, prohibits donation of human fetal tissue except by certain authorized facilities to accredited universities, and prohibits the purchase or sale of human fetal tissue. Charlotte Lozier Institute Associate Scholar Tara Sander Lee, Ph.D., submitted the following written testimony in support of SB 8.
Maureen Condic, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She has been a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, a distinguished group of physicians, scientists, and theologians from the international community whose mission it is to study questions and issues regarding the promotion and defense of human life from an interdisciplinary perspective, since 2014. In this interview, she discusses the beginning of human life and the moral status of the human being.
On January 25, Charlotte Lozier Institute President Chuck Donovan presented opening remarks at the Family Research Council during an event launching the major report entitled, “Abortion Worldwide Report: 100 Countries, 1 Century, 1 Billion Babies.” The report, authored by William Robert Johnston, Ph.D., and Thomas W. Jacobson, M.A., is the first to systematically track reported abortions in 100 nations, territories, and regions, from the year of authorization through 2015.
Samuel B. Casey, J.D., is a public interest lawyer well-known for his defense of the sanctity of human life. In this interview, he discusses the history and current state of abortion law in the United States.
Women in the United States have possessed a broad legal right to abortion since Roe v. Wade and its companion case were handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973. Outside of the abortion context, though, the unborn child possesses broad legal rights in American property, torts, and criminal law.
I believe that the decision to abort is responsible for far more sadness and family difficulties than the acceptance of a child with Down syndrome who truly does bring a family’s capacity for love to a whole new level.
Kimberly Stinnett learned from her obstetrician on May 9, 2012, that she was pregnant. Stinnett called her doctor’s answering service just two days later when she experienced fever and abdominal cramps. Karla Kennedy, M.D., called back and told Stinnett to report to the emergency room at a nearby hospital. Kennedy was not Stinnett’s regular obstetrician, but was sharing calls with him that weekend.
A group of pro-life doctors and pregnancy help centers in Illinois was granted temporary relief on December 20 from the conscience-compromising aspects of an amended state law that took effect on January 1.
This report outlines Charlotte Lozier Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom’s research in identifying waste, abuse, and potential fraud by Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers, particularly with respect to federal and state Title XIX-Medicaid reimbursements.
Jessica Duran underwent an abortion at Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO), an abortion center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in October 2012. Last week she filed a lawsuit against the abortion center and its licensed physicians in Second Judicial District Court for the County of Bernalillo.
In late November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that abortion in the United States has fallen to “historic lows” – with these most recent data revealing the lowest abortion rate since 1971, two years before the legalization of abortion nationwide via Roe v. Wade.
On June 25, 2014, France’s Superior Council of Audiovisual Content reprimanded four television channels for airing a 30-second version of Dear Future Mom during commercial breaks. Created for World Down Syndrome Day, the video features 15 young people diagnosed with Down syndrome. In the video, the young men and women respond to a concerned mother who has just learned her unborn child faces the same diagnosis.
With roughly 1.06 million abortions in the nation every year, abortion facilities have a need to dispose of approximately 2,700 baby bodies every day. This paper will examine the problems that occur when laws fail to hold abortion clinics accountable and when the clinics are allowed to choose methods of disposal that most benefit their businesses. It will also suggest a variety of changes that could be made to state laws to end some of the dangerous practices of the abortion industry.
A legislator in Indiana has announced plans to introduce a bill that would ban abortion in that state when its legislature convenes in January. In Texas, lawmakers introduced several pro-life measures on November 14, including a proposed amendment to the state constitution prohibiting abortion to the extent permitted by federal law.
A federal judge heard arguments on November 9 on Planned Parenthood’s challenge to an Indiana law requiring that an ultrasound be performed on a woman seeking an abortion at least 18 hours before the abortion is scheduled to take place.
The legal system since Roe v. Wade and through Planned Parenthood v. Casey has neglected to ask the question about the consequences of fetal personhood, fearing—rightly—the damage the answer could do to the right to abortion. But this insulation of abortion rights leaves the courts unable to rule consistently in a variety of cases where the fetal right to life has become lodged in law.
Innovative pro-life legislation signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence in March of this year is now facing extinction via the legal process.
A pro-life pregnancy help center (PHC) in Baltimore has won another legal victory in its fight against a city ordinance.
Imagine you live in San Francisco and decide to move to Flagstaff, Arizona. You meet a friend one evening at a social event, and during your conversation, mention your intention to move. Your friend expresses horror at the idea (even though he has never been). “But why,” he says “would you choose to live in Arizona? It’s hot and filled with deserts.”
Those watching the nation’s capital earlier this year witnessed three important events bearing on religious freedom and rights of conscience in the abortion debate.
In the years leading up to and following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion nationwide, the federal government—primarily Congress—has enacted various measures governing the availability of federal funds for abortion and related services.
The treatment of women seeking abortions has arisen several times during the ongoing election cycle. Some abortion advocates claim that pro-lifers want to punish women seeking abortion. They argue that women were punished for having abortions before Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, and that if Roe is repealed women will once again be subject to punishment.
Last Thursday, the March for Life hosted a Capitol Hill policy briefing to announce their theme for 2017: “The Power of One.” The event also highlighted the importance of the Hyde Amendment, featuring Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) senior policy analyst, Genevieve Plaster, M.A. and CLI associate scholar, Michael J. New, Ph.D. who provided policy background and explained the law’s measurable impact over the past 40 years.
On Friday, September 23, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee held a public hearing, “The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” which was hosted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congress enacted the first Hyde Amendment on September 30, 1976. Its passage was one of the pro-life movement’s first major legislative victories. As such, now is an apt time to look back on the amendment’s history and analyze its impact during the past 40 years.
Whether the U.S. Constitution permits a government to prohibit abortion in the context of commercial surrogacy is a question of first impression. I have found no court decision directly addressing this issue under either the federal constitution or a state constitution.
Because abortion and abortion policies impact thousands of women’s and families’ lives every day, abortion policy must be grounded on the most accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date statistical information and health data.