<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/clarence-thomas">Clarence Thomas</a> reported taking private jet flights in the spring of last year because of security concerns that followed the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leak-of-scotus-draft-on-roe-v-wade-stuns-nation-this-leak-is-the-gravest-most-unforgivable-sin">leak of a Dobbs draft opinion</a>.
The information appears in a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23932793-clarence-thomas-2022-financial-disclosure">financial disclosure</a> for calendar year 2022 that was released on Thursday. It describes the rationale for the method of travel to Dallas in May of that year and states that the trip was paid for by Republican donor Harlan Crow, a longtime friend to Thomas.
&#8220;Because of the increased security risk following the Dobbs opinion leak,&#8221; the report said, &#8220;the May flights were by private plane for official travel as filer’s security detail recommended noncommercial travel whenever possible.&#8221;
The report said the purpose of the reimbursement, which included meals as well as transportation, was for Thomas being a keynote speaker at the American Enterprise Institute&#8217;s Conference at Old Parkland. Also revealed were other trips paid for by Crow in 2022. The report additionally offers details about financial and real estate matters dating back several years to clear up what it said were prior omissions attributed to mistakes or to offer extra information outside a covered period on issues that have <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus">garnered attention in the media</a>.
POLITICO <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leak-of-scotus-draft-on-roe-v-wade-stuns-nation-this-leak-is-the-gravest-most-unforgivable-sin">obtained and published</a> a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in May 2022 indicating Roe v. Wade would be overturned. More than a month later, on June 24, the Supreme Court released Alito’s majority opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Planned Parenthood v. Casey cases, which overturned the 1973 Roe decision and returned the issue of abortion to the states.
In delivering remarks at the Heritage Foundation in October, Alito said the leak &#8220;made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination, because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1693504018745000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1RMMjCvCBOBYdpkw5O_njE">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Indeed, a man was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/police-id-armed-man-who-said-he-wanted-to-kill-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-report">arrested in June of 2022 and charged</a> with allegedly attempting to murder fellow conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And GOP lawmakers have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-senators-confront-garland-on-protesters-outside-homes-of-supreme-court-justices">pressed</a> Attorney General Merrick Garland on enforcing a federal law against protests outside Supreme Court justices’ homes.
Chief Justice John Roberts tasked the Supreme Court’s marshal, Gail Curley, with investigating the leak. The inquiry <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-releases-final-report-from-investigation-into-who-leaked-dobbs-draft">culminated in a report</a> in January that failed to identify who was responsible.
Thomas and <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/668317219/Alito-2022-Financial-Disclosure">Alito</a> released their 2022 financial disclosure reports on Thursday after receiving 90-day extensions. They have faced <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/key-allegations-against-clarence-thomas-democrats-call-probe-1819296">growing scrutiny</a> from congressional Democrats over concerns that the justices had failed to properly disclose gifts and paid-for trips, spurred by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/06/21/1183456911/justice-alito-propublica-singer">reports from ProPublica</a>. The filings come after the Judicial Conference <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/new-gift-disclosure-rules-extend-to-us-supreme-court-justices">issued a new guidance in March</a> that reinforced personal hospitality disclosure rules.
A statement delivered to reporters by Elliot Berke, an attorney who assisted Thomas, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/justice-clarence-thomas-discloses-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor">said</a> the new disclosure report &#8220;answers — and utterly refutes — the charges trumped up in this partisan feeding frenzy.&#8221;

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas Cites Safety Concerns For Private Jet Travel After Dobbs Leak

Abortion

Dobbs

Judiciary

Supreme Court

U.S.

More than a year has passed since the Supreme Court overturned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/roe-v-wade" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v. Wade</a> in its 6-3 ruling in<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-supreme-courts-213-page-decision-overturning-roe-v-wade" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization</a>, and while pro-life Americans cheer the ruling, some believe that the High Court didn&#8217;t go far enough.
Hadley Arkes, the Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions, Emeritus at Amherst College, recently <a href="https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/06/26/dobbs-a-year-later-the-lady-in-the-hat-and-the-vase/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> a column for The Catholic Thing in which he harangued the SCOTUS for not having the guts to weigh in on the &#8220;moral substance of the case.&#8221;
&#8220;It wasn’t a matter of inadvertence: the conservative majority deliberately withheld the premises that are vital to the pro-life movement in going forward now, in the States as well at the federal level, in acting through Congress,&#8221; Arkes said of the majority&#8217;s opinion.&#8221;Most notably, the majority held back from recognizing the human standing of the child in the womb.&#8221;
Arkes, a pro-life advocate since the 1960s, argued that the Roe decision altered American morals, while Dobbs will have no such effect.
&#8220;Roe not merely created a right to abortion; it changed the culture,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It converted abortion from a thing to be abhorred, discouraged, and forbidden, into something approved, celebrated, and encouraged.&#8221;
In other words, as it relates to abortion, politics wasn&#8217;t downstream from culture. The culture was downstream from politics.
&#8220;The conservative justices in Dobbs did nothing to start undoing those moral lessons,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/07/10/anchoring-originalism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">author</a> of the book &#8220;Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution&#8221; argued.
There was one highlight for Arkes — but even here, it fell short of his desired goal.
&#8220;The redeeming part of the decision would be found in Justice Alito’s opinion for the majority. He managed to show that there was no principled ground for regarding the small being in the womb as anything less than human,&#8221; Arkes said.
However, if the baby is a human, then a reasonable conclusion would be that it deserves the inalienable rights afforded to all other humans.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-12510">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;[Alito] would leave it to others to draw that moral conclusion, whether people in elective offices or perhaps conservative judges in the courts below,&#8221; Arkes noted.
He concluded that ultimately —  because Republican politicians and conservative judges at-large are squeamish on the issue of abortion — Justice Samuel Alito might have to take &#8220;that next step&#8221; in affirming the &#8220;human standing of the child in the womb.&#8221; This would come in a subsequent case dealing with the issue, potentially regarding the abortion pill.
Arkes presents and articulates a thought-provoking viewpoint that articulates why for all its success, Dobbs left much to be desired.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 24: Anti-abortion activists participate in a Celebrate Life Day Rally at the Lincoln Memorial on June 24, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Pro-Life Professor Breaks Down Why Supreme Court Didn’t Go Far Enough When It Overturned ‘Roe’

Pro-Life Professor Breaks Down Why Supreme Court Didn't Go Far Enough When It Overturned 'Roe'

College

Politics

Pro-Life Movement

Social Issues

The American medical establishment markets itself as a champion for all patients’ dignity and pretends to be an ally of marginalized women. But in its passionate support of abortion, in the very arguments it uses to justify that support, the medical establishment is actually upholding a destructive, defeatist, and racist philosophy.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision that removed federal abortion protections and returned power to the states to make their own abortion laws, the president of the American Medical Association published a statement <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/dobbs-ruling-assault-reproductive-health-safe-medical-practice">condemning</a> the Supreme Court decision as an immoral intrusion of government into the private affairs of patients and their physicians. In July of 2022, a few weeks after the Dobbs decision, the AMA published a follow-up <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/access-abortion-and-women-s-health-what-research-shows">article</a> on their website, arguing that abortion bans would have dire effects on women’s overall health. In October of that same year, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article calling abortion access a <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2209737">racial justice issue</a>. These publications from medical elites reveal a racist mentality and insidiously devalue human life, especially the lives of those facing genuine hardship.
In his statement, AMA President Jack Resneck called the Dobbs decision an “assault on reproductive health” and “safe medical practice.”
In one noteworthy section of his statement, the president asserted: “Access to legal reproductive care will be limited to those with the sufficient resources, circumstances, and financial means to do so—exacerbating health inequities by placing the heaviest burden on patients from Black, Latinx, Indigenous, low-income, rural and other historically disadvantaged communities that already face numerous structural and systemic barriers to accessing health care.”
In the AMA’s follow up article posted a couple weeks after Dr. Resneck gave his statement, AMA contributing news writer Tanya Albert Henry pointed to research conducted by University of California San Francisco faculty that suggests that women seeking abortions who are denied those abortions face worse health and economic outcomes than women not denied abortions. The San Francisco researchers conducted a five-year study of 956 women who wanted abortions, 231 of whom were prevented from getting abortions by state laws. While the study looked at multiple areas of life, including physical and mental health, Henry’s article placed much emphasis on the women’s economic situations. According to Henry, the study found that women who did not receive abortions were more likely to raise their children alone, “live in households that drop below the poverty level,” and “lack enough money to pay for food, housing and transportation.” Diana Greene Foster, the director of the research, said that “Access to abortion enables women to have children at a time when they have more resources – financial and emotional — to devote to their children.”
The heads of the AMA think they are promoting human rights and protecting their patients from injustice. But there’s just one problem. Ending a pregnancy ends a human life. Even if you reject the scientific fact that human life <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/first-trimester-babies-complex/?gad=1&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwgqejBhBAEiwAuWHioGNykDgEAOmIjrEViBsMinTWEapZVxIK2uPKBgcYeqjKEMd7ddWY-BoC0lkQAvD_BwE">begins</a> at fertilization, when an embryo with unique DNA is created, there is no denying that the pregnancy, without interference, will result in the birth of a new human being. With that indisputable fact in mind, the AMA’s pro-abortion arguments take on a morally ghoulish character.
President Resneck thinks it a travesty that “black, Latinx” and “low income”women cannot access abortion as easily with Roe reversed. Resneck believes the world would be a better place if fewer black, Latino, and poor children were born. For him, being black and living in poverty is such a hard, miserable existence with so much suffering involved that it would be better to be killed in the womb than to endure that horrible fate.
Diana Foster and the other University of California San Francisco researchers share President Resneck’s mindset when it comes to poverty. They think that if mothers struggle financially while trying to raise their children, resulting in those children not always having their needs met, it would be better for those children not to have a chance at life at all.
These medical experts believe so strongly that systematic oppression is embedded in this country and cannot be overcome. For them, racism is ubiquitous and unavoidable. Poverty is inescapable. Children who come from hard backgrounds can never rise above their past. Giving birth to them is dooming them to misery. The kind, humane thing to do is to cut their lives short. This thinking is hideous. Medical experts, who know abortion ends a life, should not be advocating for the termination of any woman’s pregnancy, no matter her race, no matter her situation. Every human being, from the moment of conception, deserves the same respect. Every human life, once created, has a right to exist. No matter how many studies they conduct, medical experts have no right to assert that black or brown children or children from poor families are any less capable of making a better future for themselves than any other children.
The authors who wrote the New England Journal of Medicine article linking abortion and racial justice make a different point, but it’s a point just as defeatist as the AMA’s arguments. They point out the high maternal mortality rate among black women and argue that abortion is safer for these women than carrying their babies to term. In other words, because there are parts of the country where certain black women do not have access to the potentially life-saving care they need during pregnancy, we need to ensure that they can abort their babies. Why is that the solution? Why not invest resources into researching and addressing the causes of pregnancy complications and maternal mortality among black women so that their lives and their babies’ lives can be saved?
The AMA and the New England Journal of Medicine are not wrong to point out the real hardships that many pregnant women face in this country. But their insistence that impoverished and marginalized women will be better off if they can abort their babies is racist and classist. These leading medical institutions should not be focusing an ounce of their energy on fighting the Dobbs decision. Instead, they should be working to improve maternal medicine so that pregnant women have better health outcomes. 
Emmie Lo is a writer and Latin teacher currently living in Jacksonville, Florida. You can read her personal blog at <a href="https://blindgirldreaming.blogspot.com/">blindgirldreaming.blogspot.com</a> and follow her on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/Teabooksgirl">@teabooksgirl</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Female doctor holding hands of her patient at hospital room

The Medical Establishment’s Racist, Classist Argument For Abortion 

The Medical Establishment’s Racist, Classist Argument for Abortion 

American Medical Association

New England Journal of medicine

Poverty

Readers Pass

Pro-life activists, students, and organizations will gather in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/washington-d-c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Washington, D.C.</a>, on Friday for the annual <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/march-for-life" target="_blank" rel="noopener">March for Life</a> for the first time since the Supreme Court’s historic decision to strike down <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/roe-v-wade" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v. Wade</a>. 
The gathering comes just days before the 50th anniversary of Roe, in which the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to abortion. With Roe gone, pro-life groups and legislators now see an opportunity to expand protections for life even as deep blue states further entrench abortion in their own state laws and constitutions. 
&#8220;The pro-life movement has just experienced a major victory in the fall of Roe v. Wade, but our work to build a culture of life is far from complete. This year’s march will reflect upon the Dobbs decision as a critical — and celebratory — milestone but will also be a time to look forward to the next steps, such as the need to continue marching annually in Washington, D.C., as well as expanding marches in the states, to advance legal protections for the unborn,” March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement obtained by The Daily Wire. 
Mancini added that the next steps for pro-lifers included supporting maternity homes and pregnancy resource centers for women in need of assistance. 
One such group that serves pregnancy centers in the U.S. and around the world is Heartbeat International, a network of pregnancy resource centers with over 3,000 affiliates. The group, which received a surge of phone calls in the months following the leak of the Dobbs draft decision, argued that the end of Roe is only the beginning of the pro-life movement.
“The mission has not changed for us or our centers at all. What we have seen is this shift, primarily to the growth of the abortion pill,” Andrea Trudden, communications director for Heartbeat International, told The Daily Wire in an interview. Heartbeat International manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, a group that provides resources to help reverse pill abortions.
Medication abortions, which <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/02/medication-abortion-now-accounts-more-half-all-us-abortions">now account for over 50%</a> of all abortions according to some estimates, are only expected to increase, especially with the FDA’s removal of abortion pill restrictions under President Joe Biden. 
One reason is that abortion pills, which can be mailed, are seen as a potential way for those seeking abortions to bypass state laws. In Texas, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/abortions-in-texas-plummet-nearly-99-months-after-dobbs-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">some estimates</a> show abortions down as much as 99% post-Dobbs, though activist groups are still concerned about the prevalence of the abortion pill. 
Trudden said that the rise of the abortion pill narrows the window of preventing abortions, meaning that they need to be “faster” in responding to needs and providing care. She said that Heartbeat International would be working to provide more comprehensive care to women and increase the technological reach of the organization.
“As we continue to follow what the abortion side is doing, we do need to, and are planning to, adapt a little bit more as well,” Trudden said. “We are working with technology to be able to provide similar care [remotely] as to what she would receive inside a center as well.”
While the work of pro-life organizations remains very much the same in terms of providing resources and care to women, pro-abortion and pro-life legislators have taken opposite paths to approach the post-Roe legal world. 
While some action at the congressional level has been attempted, most of the legal battles will likely be at the state level thanks to the Supreme Court.
States like California, Vermont, and Michigan have all put abortion into their state constitutions while broad abortion bans have gone into effect in states like Alabama and Tennessee. In Kansas, a pro-life amendment failed at the ballot box in August, leading many pro-abortion advocates to declare that the Dobbs decision would be a hindrance to Republicans and the future of pro-life legislation. 
State abortion bans are challenged by the overwhelming number of corporations and even cities that have offered or want to provide funding for women to travel out of state to get an abortion. Additionally, despite the Supreme Court’s decision, lower courts have still proved to be a problem for pro-life laws in states like South Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. 
Tennessee’s ban, which was triggered by the Dobbs decision, is already facing potential challenges, even though the state is overwhelmingly Republican. The upcoming legislative session is expected to debate adding exceptions to the law, with some Republicans arguing that exceptions for rape and incest should be added. 
While some Republicans have watered down their response to abortion, others in many states are now pushing for the <a href="https://freethestates.org/get-involved/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">full abolition</a> of abortion, arguing that Republicans have no excuses now to not fully protect life. 
While legal questions remain, pro-lifers remain steadfast in their beliefs and continue to march. Noah Collazo, a Liberty University freshman, is joining about 500 other students and Morse Tan, the dean of Liberty University School of Law and former U.S. Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice, in marching in D.C. 
“We’re about to head to Washington, D.C., to stand for pro-life and for the legislators there who are standing for freedom and for the protection of the unborn,” Collazo said in a statement to The Daily Wire before getting on a bus to head to the march. “It’s definitely cool seeing all these people so early in the morning — so many of us showing up to stand for what we believe in.”

House GOP on Biden

Pro-Lifers Celebrate First March For Life Since SCOTUS Victory, Plan For Future

March For Life

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Washington D.C.

George Washington University law professor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jonathan-turley" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jonathan Turley</a> laid into the Supreme Court on Thursday after reports revealed that they had been unable to determine who leaked an early draft of their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization.
The court released a <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-releases-final-report-from-investigation-into-who-leaked-dobbs-draft/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> Thursday afternoon — and despite calling the leak a &#8220;misguided attempt at protest&#8221; and a &#8220;grave assault on the judicial process,&#8221; they said that investigators had analyzed evidence and interviewed anyone who may have had or seen a copy of the draft, yet still came up empty: &#8220;The team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.&#8221;
Turley made it clear that he was not impressed, saying in a brief Twitter thread that he believed a failure to identify and punish whoever had leaked the draft would only lead to more leaks in the future.
&#8220;The Supreme Court&#8217;s report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself,&#8221; Turley began.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world&#39;s leading forensic investigatory body&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1616159583348875264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world&#8217;s leading forensic investigatory body,&#8221; he added.
Turley went on to say that anyone who might feel compelled to leak a future decision would not have any reason to fear repercussions, adding, &#8220;Thus far, the culprit succeeded in not just leaking the opinion but evading detection.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;The proposed changes in security are unlikely to meaningfully reduce the danger of such leaks. The nature of the Court&#39;s work requires a free flow of drafts and memoranda. That is why we hope to achieve through deterrence what was not achieved through ethics&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1616160499955126272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He then argued that the court&#8217;s suggested security changes would not do much to prevent similar leaks in the future — but it might discourage the justices and clerks from freely circulating memos and decision drafts as they have in the past.
Turley&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1616160850246791169" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overall conclusion</a> was simple: a failure to find and punish the leaker would only make future leakers feel as though they are justified in taking similar actions whenever they saw fit to do so.
&#8220;In this age of rage, this danger will only grow. Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so,&#8221; he said.

House Hearing On U.S. Park Police Attack On Protesters At Lafayette Square Park

‘This Danger Will Only Grow’: Jonathan Turley Takes Supreme Court Apart Over Failure To Find Leaker

Jonathan Turley Takes Supreme Court Apart Over Failure To Find Leaker

Courts

Jonathan Turley

Leak

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/georgia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Georgia</a> Supreme Court has reinstated the state&#8217;s six week <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortion</a> ban.
In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the state Supreme Court issued a stay against a lower court ruling that overturned the state&#8217;s 2019 &#8220;heartbeat&#8221; abortion ban. The order went into effect immediately, pending an appeal from state officials. The superior court of Fulton County previously overturned the law last week; it had previously been blocked by a federal court until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this past summer.
&#8220;The State of Georgia’s Emergency Petition for Supersedeas seeking a stay of the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County in [STATE OF GEORGIA v. SISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COLLECTIVE et al.] is hereby granted,&#8221; the court wrote in a <a href="https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/s23m0358.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one-page order</a>. The decision of the court was unanimous; presiding justice Nels S.D. Peterson was disqualified, and justice Andrew A. Pinson did not participate. The court also dismissed a separate request for an administrative stay.
According to the <a href="https://www.ajc.com/politics/state-asks-georgia-supreme-court-to-allow-enforcement-of-abortion-law/TZYXSAXNPZFKJMLQ5AOUOE4BSI/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Atlanta Journal-Constitution</a>, lawyers for the state appealed to the Supreme Court days after the Fulton County court ruling. “The harm to the state is significant and irreparable,” attorneys wrote in their appeal, via the AJC. “Unborn children are at risk every day that the injunction continues.”
The lower court ruling had overturned the law on the basis that it was unconstitutional when it was passed in 2019; in their appeal, state attorneys said that did not matter since the law is constitutional now because of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and sent abortion back to the states. “The Superior Court fundamentally misunderstood the role of courts, which merely interpret law in the course of issuing judgments in individual cases,” attorneys wrote. “Courts do not amend the constitution, and the constitution does not change simply because a court’s view of it changes.”
In the meantime, abortion clinics in Georgia had <a href="https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-supreme-court-orders-states-abortion-law-back-into-effect/D5VPGTJNLVGMPDHOGORBCYIKSI/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resumed providing abortion services</a> for women at up to 22 weeks of pregnancy, which was the standard practice before the law was passed. The Feminist Women’s Health Center, an abortion clinic in Atlanta, told the AJC they had no abortions scheduled for Wednesday, but several were scheduled for Saturday in which a fetal heartbeat could be detected.
Last week, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23307352-ga-abortion-ruling-111522" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fulton County Superior Court</a> judge Robert McBurney overturned the “Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act,” which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. McBurney declared the law void under Georgia law, citing a provision that declares unconstitutional laws void from the time of their passage, and mandates that the judiciary declares them so.
In 2019, &#8220;everywhere in America, including Georgia, it was unequivocally unconstitutional for governments &#8212; federal, state, or local &#8212; to ban abortions before viability,&#8221; McBurney wrote. Therefore, the LIFE Act &#8220;did not become the law of Georgia when it was enacted and it is not the law of Georgia now,&#8221; he concluded.
&#8220;What does this ruling mean? Most fundamentally, it means that courts &#8212; not legislatures &#8212; define the law,&#8221; McBurney concluded. &#8220;If the courts have spoken, clearly and directly, as to what the law is, as to what is and is not constitutional, legislatures and legislators are not at liberty to pass laws contrary to such pronouncements.&#8221;

Close-Up Of Gavel On Table

Georgia Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court, Reinstates 6-Week Abortion Ban

Court

Georgia

A judge in Arizona ruled that the state&#8217;s 19th-century abortion ban could take effect.
In a <a href="https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Planned%20Parenthood%20v%20Brnovich%20Ruling.pdf">ruling</a> Thursday, Arizona Superior Court judge Kellie Johnson ruled that Arizona&#8217;s near-total abortion ban, which dates back to 1864, could take effect after the Supreme Court sent the issue of abortion back to the states in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization. The judge&#8217;s ruling overturned a state court decision in 1973 that blocked the law after Roe v. Wade took effect.
The <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/viewDocument/?docName=http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1864 law</a>, which was modified with streamlined language in 1901, bans the administration of an abortion procedure or abortifacient drug. &#8220;A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years,&#8221; the law <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm">states</a>.
Recounting the legal history behind the case, Johnson wrote that the law was declared unconstitutional at trial in 1972, but that decision was overturned by an appeals court in 1973. Less than three weeks after the higher court ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade; the appeals court &#8220;vacated its opinion on the sole and express grounds of the binding nature of the United States Supreme Court decisions,&#8221; Johnson recounted. The trial judge then ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
In the succeeding years, the Arizona legislature passed numerous laws placing regulations on abortion. Most recently, Arizona Governor signed a law in March that banned abortion after 15 weeks. But that <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/SB1164P.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">law</a> expressly did not overrule the 1864 ban. In light of the Dobbs decision, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a motion for relief from judgment to put the ban back into effect. Planned Parenthood responded, arguing that the court should not reinstate the ban but issue a ruling modifying the law to &#8220;harmonize&#8221; it with newer laws. The court refused, noting that &#8220;[t]he controlling Complaint seeks relief solely on constitutional grounds,&#8221; and that &#8220;[t]he judgment entered in 1973 was based solely on those constitutional grounds,&#8221; therefore issuing a modified judgment was improper.
“The court finds that because the legal basis for the judgment entered in 1973 has now been overruled, it must vacate the judgment in its entirety,” Johnson concluded in her ruling. &#8221; [T]he Second Amended Declaratory Judgment and Injunction signed by the Court on March 27, 1973 &#8230; no longer has any prospective application.&#8221;
Brnovich celebrated the ruling as a win for life in the state. &#8220;A Pima County judge lifted an injunction that was placed on Arizona&#8217;s abortion statute,&#8221; Brnovich said in a <a href="https://www.azag.gov/press-release/arizona-attorney-general-mark-brnovich-successfully-defends-life-pima-county">statement</a>. &#8220;We applaud the court for upholding the will of the legislature and providing clarity and uniformity on this important issue. I have and will continue to protect the most vulnerable Arizonans.&#8221;
The Arizona ruling comes as the pro-life movement faces ongoing legal struggles in other states. Earlier this month, a judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-strikes-down-michigans-1931-abortion-law" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michigan</a> declared the state&#8217;s near-total abortion ban, enacted in 1931, unconstitutional. Last week, a judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-temporarily-suspends-ohios-six-week-abortion-ban">Ohio</a> temporarily suspended the state&#8217;s six-week abortion ban that took effect after Dobbs. And earlier this week, a judge in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/22/politics/indiana-abortion-ban-blocked/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Indiana</a> temporarily blocked the state&#8217;s newly-passed abortion ban, just weeks after it was enacted by the state legislature.

AZ flag

Arizona Judge Allows 1864 Abortion Ban To Go Into Effect

Arizona

Mark Brnovich

Since the Supreme Court decided on the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/dobbs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization </a>case in June, effectively overturning <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/roe-v-wade" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v. Wade</a>, the landscape of abortion in the United States has shifted as pregnancy centers receive more calls and the conversation changes.
States have moved to restrict abortion or increase access to the procedure. California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom even <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/newsom-pitches-abortion-friendly-california-in-red-state-billboard-blitz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">took</a> out advertisements in Republican-led states, telling women how to get an abortion in California.
Jessica Warner of Heartbeat International told The Daily Wire that pregnancy centers have seen a change since the Dobbs decision.
“According to an informal poll we conducted at the end of July, we found that 66% of centers have seen an increase in calls since the Dobbs decision,” she said over email. “Option Line, our 24/7 national pregnancy helpline, has not seen a significant increase or decrease in contacts who are at risk for abortion, however we have noted a slight increase in those who seem to be on the fence about abortion.”
Warner said they think there has not been more of an uptick “due to the censorship we have seen from Big Tech. Google has banned the [sic] our ability to advertise Abortion Pill Reversal since September of 2021, following the Texas Heartbeat Bill being put into law.”
Warner pointed out that it is too early to tell if more women are deciding to carry their pregnancies to term after Dobbs, and “[t]he number of reversal calls has remained steady since the Dobbs decision.”
“We know that more women have obtained abortion pills through telehealth and on abortion websites since the Dobbs decision. This means that fewer women have had medical screening or ultrasound prior to [an] abortion, which puts them at risk,” Warner added when asked about the number of calls regarding complications or concerns about the abortion pill since the ruling. Google banned Heartbeat from advertising the abortion pill reversal due to the Texas Heartbeat bill financially <a href="https://time.com/6189528/anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers-collect-data-investigation/">rewarding</a> abortion reports in a successful civil case, and with women calling the pregnancy center, they essentially admitted their attempt to get an abortion, which Google determined to be manipulative. However, Warner and other crisis pregnancy centers affected have stressed that they remained committed to protecting the privacy of every woman they counsel, no matter their previous abortion attempt.
Misinformation has also become a widespread issue when it comes to abortion and pregnancy as pro-abortion entities have attempted to skew the messaging about pro-life laws.
“Even though no pro-life laws or abortion regulation targets the mother for prosecution, we are hearing from the women the false legal concern that abortion laws are focused on women having abortions” Warner added. &#8220;There is fear of prosecution from those in states that have banned abortion if they seek reversal and report that they took the abortion pill.”
The political landscape has also changed, as Democrats seek to go after crisis pregnancy centers that help women and men facing unplanned pregnancies.
On Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-praises-dem-ags-taking-crisis-pregnancy-centers-rocked-violence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">commended</a> attorneys general as people who are &#8220;fighting on the front lines to defend our rights.&#8221;
&#8220;You are taking on, rightly, the crisis pregnancy centers, launching public education campaigns,&#8221; she said. &#8220;And in the midst of the vast amount of confusion, the need of you as the truth tellers to sort out fiction from fact and combat misinformation and disinformation, which we all know often creates a situation that is ripe for predatory practice.&#8221;
Doctors are also weighing in on the debate, although they did in the past as well. The American Association of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/pro-life" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pro-Life</a> Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) <a href="https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/15-week-fact-sheet.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notes</a> that when abortion occurs after 15 weeks, it involves “extreme and inhumane procedures.” The group also points out that “a fetus can experience pain at least by 14 weeks … and likely earlier by 10 weeks gestation.”
Stuart Derbyshire is a neuroscientist who co-wrote a study reportedly used by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). He has <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/the-acog-should-reconsider-fetal-pain/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> against the concept of fetal pain for decades, but changed his belief in recent years, instead co-writing a piece that <a href="https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posits</a> fetal pain experience “from as early as 12 weeks.”
Abortion is much more dangerous for the mother the later it occurs in pregnancy and “the risk of death from abortion increases by 38 percent for each additional week beyond eight weeks,&#8221; AAPLOG states.
AAPLOG “opposes abortion,” but in circumstances where there is a severe medical emergency endangering the mother’s life, the <a href="https://aaplog.org/what-is-aaplogs-position-on-abortion-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">organization</a> “believes in ‘treatment to save the mother’s life,’ including premature delivery if that is indicated,” pointing out that this is not the same as “abortion to save the mother’s life.” In this instance, AAPLOG says, “[w]e are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.”
&#8220;The intended ending of an abortion is to produce a dead embryo or fetus. The intended ending of an early separation of mother and fetus in a life-threatening situation is to save the life of the mother,” Dr. Christina Francis, Board Member and CEO-Elect of AAPLOG told The Daily Wire over email.
“If this occurs after viability (currently approximately 22-23 weeks gestation), then mom and baby can both be cared for and likely survive. In the very rare cases that this is needed pre-viability (an example would be an infection in the uterus), a separation of mother and baby can be done in a way that not only respects the dignity of both lives but also does not intend the death of the embryo/fetus. This is different from an elective abortion at these gestational ages, which is done in a manner that guarantees the death of that preborn child,” she added.

Baby

Abortion Landscape: Pregnancy Centers See Uptick In Calls Since Dobbs; Doctors Weigh In On Fetal Pain

Crisis Pregnancy Centers See Increase In Calls Since Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Ruling, Doctors Weigh In On Fetal Pain

Kamala Harris

Pregnant

Vice President Kamala Harris attacked the legitimacy of the Supreme Court over its decision overturning federal abortion rights.
In an interview with NBC News&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; that aired Sunday, Harris assailed the court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization. She expressed doubts about whether the body can interpret the law fairly.
“I think this is an activist court,” Harris told NBC&#8217;s Chuck Todd. &#8220;We had an established right for almost half a century, which is the right of women to make decisions about their own body as an extension of what we have decided to be, the privacy rights to which we are all entitled, and this court took that constitutional right away.&#8221;
&#8220;We are suffering as a nation because of it,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;That causes me great concern about the integrity of the court overall, especially as someone who&#8211; my life was inspired by people like Thurgood Marshall, the work on that court of Earl Warren to bring a unanimous court to pass Brown v. Board of Education. This is the court that once sat Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O’Connor. It’s a very different court.&#8221;
Harris went on to press the U.S. Senate to pass a law currently in the works that would take the abortion issue out of the hands of state governments and codify the right to the procedure into federal law.
&#8220;I believe government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies,&#8221; Harris said. &#8220;I believe government should not be telling women how to plan their families.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH: Vice President Harris says the Supreme Court is “an activist court” for overturning Roe v. Wade.<a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a>: “We had an established right for almost half a century. … This court took that constitutional right away. And we are suffering as a nation because of it.” <a href="https://t.co/rXt8IRPSpI">pic.twitter.com/rXt8IRPSpI</a>
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) <a href="https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1568954534222766082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
Harris&#8217; comments follow months of similar attacks from prominent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-democrats-explode-after-supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-kill-unborn-babies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Democrats</a> who have attacked the Court as &#8220;illegitimate&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-nancy-pelosi-demonizes-extremist-supreme-court-as-dhs-warns-of-terrorism-against-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">extremist</a>&#8221; and pushed for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-bill-would-impose-term-limits-on-scotus-justices-mandatory-replacements-every-two-years" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aggressive reforms</a> in reaction to the Dobbs decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts defended the Court from such attacks earlier this week.
“The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions always have been subject to intense criticism and that is entirely appropriate,” Roberts told an audience at the 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference in Colorado this week. “But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
&#8220;[S]imply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court,&#8221; he added.

US-politics-CAPITOL-unrest-ANNIVERSARY

VP Harris Attacks SCOTUS: ‘This Is An Activist Court’

VP Harris Attacks SCOTUS: 'This Is An Activist Court'

Meet the Press

Supreme Court Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> defended the court from attacks on its legitimacy.
Speaking to jurists at the 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roberts pointed out that the nation&#8217;s highest court has always handled controversial cases, and decided some cases that provoked strong reactions from the public. However, Roberts pushed back on recent attacks against the legitimacy of the court itself, saying that disagreeing with an opinion on a controversial issue does not call into question the legitimacy of the court.
“The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions always have been subject to intense criticism and that is entirely appropriate,” Roberts told attendees at the conference, via the <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/chief-justice-john-roberts-defends-supreme-court-legitimacy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Post</a>. “But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
“Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism,&#8221; he added, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/10/supreme-court-roberts-legitimacy/">The Washington Post</a>. &#8220;In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”
Roberts pointed out that the distinct purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law without regard to political opinions or concerns. “That role doesn’t change simply because people disagree with this opinion or that opinion or with a particular mode of jurisprudence,” he said.
The Supreme Court took up a number of controversial cases and handed down several controversial decisions during its term earlier this year. In June, the court ruled that state-level restrictions on concealed carrying firearms are unconstitutional, in the case of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen</a>; then, the court ruled in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization</a>, overturning Roe v. Wade and giving control of abortion back to the states; finally, the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to set emissions caps on coal plants in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-bidens-epa-says-agency-does-not-have-authority-to-regulate-carbon-dioxide-emissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency</a>.
Democrats and left-wing activists responded to those three rulings, especially the Dobbs decision, by slandering the court as &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-nancy-pelosi-demonizes-extremist-supreme-court-as-dhs-warns-of-terrorism-against-judges">extremist</a>&#8221; and saying the court &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-elizabeth-warren-claimed-scotus-burned-legitimacy-in-roe-verdict-calls-for-adding-more-justices" target="_blank" rel="noopener">set a torch</a>&#8221; to its legitimacy, and calling for it to be reformed or for more justices to be put onto the bench.
Roberts continued, warning about the dangers of allowing politics into the judiciary. “If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle,” he said, via the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-colorado-springs-john-roberts-government-and-politics-cdff7d291a37c3b8459e787421c633d2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a>. &#8220;You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.&#8221;
Roberts’ comments come after Vice President <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/vp-harris-attacks-activist-court-says-loss-rights-post-roe-led-sufferi-rcna47072" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kamala Harris</a> attacked the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in reaction to the Court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs.
&#8220;I think this is an activist court,&#8221; Harris told Chuck Todd in a clip of an interview with NBC News’ &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; Friday. &#8220;We had an established right for almost half a century [abortion]&#8230; And this court took that constitutional right away, and we are suffering as a nation because of it. That causes me great concern about the integrity of the court overall.&#8221;

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Roberts Defends SCOTUS After VP Harris, Democrats Attack Court’s Legitimacy

Roberts Defends SCOTUS After VP Harris, Democrats Attack Court's Legitimacy

Biden Administration

John Roberts

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> said Thursday he hopes the report on the leaked draft opinion of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision comes soon.
“Improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making, from whatever side, from whomever, are a threat to the judicial decision-making process and inhibit our capacity to communicate with one another,” Gorsuch <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/09/supreme-court-abortion-leak-gorsuch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at a conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado. The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-gorsuch-said-findings-of-probe-into-leaked-roe-draft-opinion-will-be-made-in-report-11662684240?st=6q2jaspsa8jvbky&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wall Street Journal</a> and <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/top-court-leak-threatens-judicial-decision-making-gorsuch-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg Law</a> reported on his comments.
“I very much hope we get to the bottom of this sooner or later,” he added.
Gorsuch didn’t comment on if the report would be released to the public, and reporters were not allowed to conduct interviews with him or other judges, at the conference’s direction, the Journal reported.
“The chief justice appointed an internal committee to oversee the investigation,” Gorsuch said. “That committee has been busy and we’re looking forward to their report, I hope soon.”
In May, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Supreme Court marshal would be in charge of an investigation to discover where the leak came from, but the high court has been silent on the matter since that time and not discussed the topic with the public. Investigators required the clerks at the high court to take part in interviews and hand over their cellphones this past summer. At the time, many of the clerks sought lawyers of their own due to the requirements.
The Dobbs opinion was leaked prior to the official ruling being released, setting the American public — on both sides of the debate — into a frenzy over the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade. When the majority opinion was released, it was very similar to the leaked draft, resulting in decades of precedent from the Roe v. Wade ruling no longer applying. The decision returned the topic of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortion</a> back to individual states, allowing them to pass and enact their own laws concerning the controversial procedure.
States have taken action over the past year to eradicate abortion, allow it in certain circumstances, or promote it and attract women from states where it is banned.
At the conference, Gorsuch discussed several topics in a joint public discussion with two circuit judges, including the steps American students must go through to become lawyers.
“That’s something we have to ask ourselves about: Does it really require seven years of collegiate education to become a competent lawyer?” Justice Gorsuch said.

94806F28-C250-41CE-B335-71EC012A8D76_1_201_a

Justice Gorsuch Says He Hopes Report On Dobbs Leak Will Come Soon

Justice Neil Gorsuch Says He Hopes Report On Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Leak Will Come Soon

Neil Gorsuch

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden administration</a> will begin offering &#8220;abortion counseling&#8221; and, in some cases, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortions</a> to veterans through Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals — regardless of state law — in a move aimed at the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the VA said Friday.
The rule says some state laws are &#8220;laws not founded in science or based on evidence,&#8221; and asserts that &#8220;State and local laws and regulations that would prevent VA health care professionals from providing needed abortion-related care, as permitted by this rule, are preempted.&#8221; In a statement, it <a href="https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5820" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, &#8220;VA is taking steps to guarantee Veterans and other VA beneficiaries abortion-related care anywhere in the country.&#8221;
Since 1999, the VA has been banned from providing abortion or abortion counseling. The interim rule will become effective immediately, even though it has not completed the public-comment process, it said.
&#8220;As abortion bans come into force across the country, veterans in many States are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed,&#8221; the rule says. &#8220;Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.&#8221;
The <a href="https://www.womenshealth.va.gov/WOMENSHEALTH/docs/AR57-IF-Reg-to-FR-Reproductive-Health-Services.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rule</a> spends much of its 40 pages making a complicated legal argument that the Department does not need Congress&#8217;s authority to begin offering abortions. It also says the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal dollars from funding abortions, only applies to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
The rule says that abortion counseling will be provided in all cases, and that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/full-on-battle-mode-conservative-leaders-put-walmart-on-notice-for-promising-to-pay-for-abortions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortions</a> will be provided only in certain circumstances, like where the &#8220;health&#8221; of the mother is jeopardized or the pregnancy is the result of rape.
However, the &#8220;rape and incest&#8221; terms will be broadly defined and enforced. &#8220;We are not requiring a veteran to present particular evidence such as a police report to qualify for this care,&#8221; it said.
The same goes for what constitutes impacting a woman&#8217;s health. &#8220;Individuals at risk of pregnancy complications who do not have access to contraception or abortion may experience conditions resulting from pregnancies that can leave them at risk for loss of future fertility,&#8221; the rule says. It also cites other conditions like preeclampsia and cardiac disease. &#8220;Assessment of the conditions, injuries, illness, or diseases that will qualify for this care will be made by appropriate health care professionals on a case-by-case basis,&#8221; it says.
Part of its justification for why it has the authority to make the change is that providing an exception for when the health of a mother could be impacted is &#8220;similar&#8221; to providing an exception for when her life is in danger, which is the standard for Department of Defense (DOD) care to active-duty military. It says VA health care must be &#8220;similar&#8221; to the DOD, which is not the same is &#8220;identical.&#8221;
The Department will also use federal funds to pay for veterans to get abortions elsewhere. &#8220;VA will pay for abortions from providers in the community, where available, in cases where the life or health of the Veteran is endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in the case of pregnancy resulting from an act of rape or incest,&#8221; the Department <a href="https://www.womenshealth.va.gov/WOMENSHEALTH/topics/reproductive-health.asp">said</a>.
“We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and Veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve. Offering this care will save Veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that,” Dr. Shereef Elnahal, VA’s Under Secretary for Health, said in a statement.
According to the rule, &#8220;Abortion counseling has three purposes: (1) to aid a pregnant individual in making a decision about an unwanted pregnancy, (2) to help the pregnant individual implement the decision, and (3) to assist the pregnant individual in controlling their future fertility.&#8221;

Department Of Veterans Affairs To Begin Offering Abortions To Vets, Even In States Where It Is Banned

Department of Defense

Department of Veterans Affairs

Joe Biden

Military

Menu