On April 26, 2019 the Kansas Supreme Court declared that the Kansas state constitution guarantees a right to abortion. The case involves a challenge to a Kansas statute banning the practice of dismemberment abortion—i.e., “with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such […]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yesterday, during an MSNBC townhall event with Chris Matthews, presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked if he believes in “punishment for abortion” to which he replied that there should be “some form of punishment.” When asked whether this applied to women who have had abortions, Mr. Trump replied in the affirmative, though he later clarified that he believes only abortionists should be held accountable.
Pro-life groups have quickly, and with a united voice, used this incident to clarify that the pro-life movement has never advocated, in any context, for the punishment of women who undergo abortion, but rather acknowledges that abortion harms and exploits women.
Five-month abortion laws restrict abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy—when an unborn child can feel pain from abortion. Opponents of five-month abortion laws argue they violate the “viability rule” created by the U.S. Supreme Court. The viability rule provides that government “may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” In most cases viability will occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, the viability rule is unworkable, arbitrary, unjust, poorly reasoned, inadequate, and extreme. The viability rule cannot be justified, especially as applied to five-month laws. In a challenge to a five-month law it is reasonable to conclude that the Court might abandon the viability rule altogether or not apply it to five-month laws.