Mary E. Harned, J.D.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Last week, a federal court held that a lawsuit challenging multiple pro-life laws in Virginia may proceed. However, the court rightfully dismissed the plaintiffs’ “cumulative undue burden” claim—the centerpiece of the abortion industry’s latest strategy to undermine laws written to protect unborn children and their mothers.