Editor’s Note (2/27/2020): Since the time of initial publication, the name of the case, June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Gee, has changed to June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo. This report may be viewed in its entirety as a PDF at: ARS_The Supreme Court Has Said It Will Hear a Major Abortion Case from Louisiana […]
The entire text of this publication may be found as a pdf at Anti-Discrimination Laws in the Womb: New Momentum for Protection. Something interesting is afoot in recent disappointments for advocates of the right to life. In a series of cases that may test the appeal of a new jurisprudence on abortion, two federal […]
On May 28, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-anticipated ruling in an abortion case from Indiana involving disposition of fetal remains and whether a state may prohibit abortions performed because of the child’s race, sex, or diagnosis of Down syndrome or other disability. The lower courts had struck down both policies. The […]
SBA List & CLI both Submitted Briefs Urging the Court to Uphold Indiana’s Pro-Life Policies Washington, D.C. – Today the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling and upheld an Indiana law, signed by then-Governor Mike Pence, requiring the humane and dignified disposition of human fetal remains. In the same opinion, without expressing […]
Last week Justice Clarence Thomas issued a respectful but strong admonition to his colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Thomas’s admonition comes in his opinion dissenting from the decision of the Court to deny review in Gee v. Planned Parenthood, No. 17-1492, and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood, No. 17-1340. As the Supreme […]
Earlier this year I joined attorneys Nikolas T. Nikas and Dorinda C. Bordlee as counsel on the amicus brief the Charlotte Lozier Institute submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the pregnancy care center case, NIFLA v. Becerra. Nik is co-founder, president and general counsel of Bioethics Defense Fund (BDF) and Dorinda is Vice […]
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.
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.
Today I’m going to talk about three legal policies involving life protections for unborn children. I’m going to explain how each of these policies could actually be upheld under current Supreme Court abortion precedent. However, at the same time, each of these policies represents a serious challenge to current Supreme Court abortion standards by forcing the Court to consider and, hopefully, uphold policies that narrow the abortion right and call into question its continued legitimacy. But first, let’s step back and consider three basic points that help us put pro-life legislative initiatives into context.
This Q&A-style fact sheet explains the background and implications of the Supreme Court ruling on October 14, 2014 regarding challenges to abortion-related laws enacted in Texas. It answers questions regarding which abortion provisions are at issue, whether the Supreme Court ruling deals with the constitutionality of the provisions, what the key court rulings are leading up to this ruling, and what happens next.