Mary E. Harned, J.D.
Associate ScholarMary E. Harned served as an Investigative Counsel with the Select Investigative Panel of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, where she coauthored reports examining the fetal tissue industry. Formerly, Mary was Staff Counsel with Americans United for Life, where she authored numerous articles for Defending Life (AUL’s annual publication), op-eds, blog posts, congressional and state legislative testimony, and federal administrative comments. She also crafted original model legislation and supporting materials to aid state and federal legislators in advancing policy objectives within her expertise. Mary appeared in the media in her role at AUL, including Fox News, CBN, National Review Online, The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, Lifenews, and numerous radio programs and print interviews.
Mary formerly served as Chief Counsel to U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), where she advised and assisted Dr. Coburn on policy issues within the Senate Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction and on all judicial nominations, including those of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, she served as a Counsel to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions  (R-AL) on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mary graduated cum laude from the University of Alabama School of Law, and received her B.A. in political science from the University of Alabama, where she served as president of the campus pro-life organization. Mary also served as a board member and counselor for the local pregnancy care center, and as Chairman of the College Republican Federation of Alabama.
She lives with her husband and children in northern Virginia.
Research Authored
Abortion Cases in the Higher Federal Courts
Abortion advocates contend that the United States Supreme Court is on the precipice of reversing Roe v. Wade—the conservative justices are simply waiting for the arrival of another like-minded colleague, and they may find that person in Judge Amy Coney Barrett. An honest review of recent decisions by the Court, however, simply fails to support this belief. Instead of building a case for Roe’s demise, the Court has managed to make abortion jurisprudence even murkier for legislators and lower courts trying to determine the constitutionality of abortion laws, while otherwise refusing to make substantive decisions in abortion cases.
FDA’s Race to Defend Women From Dangerous Drugs
Abortion advocates—seeking to exploit the COVID-19 crisis to advance unfettered access to abortion-inducing drugs—found a friend in federal court. In mid-July, Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from enforcing certain health and safety practices that abortion providers are required to follow when prescribing the only FDA-approved abortion drug regimen.
Pro-Life Topics for Lawmakers Regarding Coronavirus
Abortion advocates have found a new ally—COVID-19. During this intensely stressful time, the vast majority of Americans are focused on protecting their health and the health of loved ones, neighbors, and vulnerable members of their community. The abortion industry, however, is seizing on this national emergency to promote their agenda.
“Medicare for All” Means “Abortion for All”
Advocates for taxpayer-funded abortion likely underestimated the backlash they would face when they attempted to include abortion funding and coverage in healthcare reform in 2010. Ultimately, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) abortion-related provisions and accompanying federal regulations marked a massive deviation from the long-standing Hyde amendment by allowing abortion-on-demand in federally subsidized insurance plans.
Abortion Cases in the Higher Federal Courts
Our nation’s highest court may soon clarify or modify federal abortion jurisprudence after agreeing to hear June Medical Services v. Gee, a case in which a Fifth Circuit panel upheld a Louisiana law requiring an abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of his or her practice.
Abortion Cases in the Higher Federal Courts
While several states have appealed court decisions enjoining abortion restrictions to the United States Supreme Court, the Court has thus far failed to clarify or modify federal abortion jurisprudence. Specifically, the Court has declined to review an Eleventh Circuit Court decision enjoining a second-trimester dismemberment abortion ban in Alabama, and a Seventh Circuit Court decision enjoining a ban on discriminatory abortions in Indiana.
Massachusetts HB 3320: Sweeping Away Commonsense Protections for Women and Children
The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering a proposal to further liberalize the law of abortion in the Bay State. HB 3320 would substantially alter Massachusetts law by removing any recognition of an unborn child as a person—or even potential person—worthy of protection.
Massachusetts’ Draconian Abortion Proposal
Massachusetts bills H. 3320 and S. 1209 would codify a right to abortion through nine months of pregnancy in Bay State law and repeal the state’s meager existing protections for unborn children and their mothers. However, because of a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the presence of an undefined health exception in the state’s viability law, abortion is essentially legal through all nine months of pregnancy in Massachusetts today.
Abortion Cases in the Higher Federal Courts
Challenged abortion laws that may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in the near future can be divided into three main groups: (I) Limitations on the availability of taxpayer dollars to abortion providers; (II) restrictions on abortion procedures and discriminatory abortions; and (III) health, safety, and informed consent laws.
Abortion Cases in the Higher Federal Courts
The challenged abortion laws that may arrive at the United States Supreme Court in the near future can be divided into three main groups: (I) Limitations on the availability of taxpayer dollars to abortion providers; (II) restrictions on abortion procedures and discriminatory abortions; and (III) health, safety, and informed consent laws.