Monday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down some provisions of the Texas HB2 bill seems like it’s set off a chain reaction to other states’ pro-life laws falling.
In Florida, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued an injunction just hours before a pro-life law was to take effect. The law would have prohibited funding Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions; Hinkle ruled that is unconstitutional, saying:
No court has embraced the defendants’ position. And there is no logic to it. That a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion does not mean a legislature can impose otherwise-unconstitutional conditions on public funding.
NPR also reports on the second provision that Hinkle prevented from taking effect:
The court also blocked a provision that would have required state employees in Florida to inspect the medical records of 50 percent of clinic patients. Planned Parenthood argued that the extensive inspection was a burden to clinics and a privacy violation. Hinkle agreed.
What Hinkle didn’t strike was a provision requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals, which is a law struck down in the Texas decision; however, NPR reports that Planned Parenthood had not challenged that part of the law in this suit, so it did not affect it.
Meanwhile, hundreds of miles to the north, a law in Indiana was also stayed at the last minute. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, from the Federal District Court for Southern Indiana, granted an injunction against a law that would have banned abortions on babies shown to have fetal disabilities or genetic anomalies (such as Down syndrome). It also would have banned sex-selection abortions or abortions based on race. Pratt ruled:
“It is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992) . This right is grounded in the right to privacy rooted in “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 153; see Casey , 505 U.S. at 846 (“[c]onstitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). (Page 8-9)
[T]he very notion that, pre-viability, a State can examine the basis for a woman’s choice to make this private, personal and difficult decision, if she at some point earlier decided she wants a child as a general matter, is inconsistent with the notion of a right rooted in privacy concerns and a liberty right to make independent decisions. (Page 14).
Stories like the one you just read transform hearts and minds.
For example, one of our followers, Ross, messaged us and commented:
“I began to question my pro-choice views after reading articles about Live Action…Live Action is primarily responsible for my becoming Pro-Life through their well-thought-out, scientific information and the emotionally and uplifting stories of real people with real experiences in saving the lives of their children regardless of what others might say.”
Knowledge is power and CAN open eyes to SEE the truth. And, YOU can provide the spark to transform someone’s mind, just like Ross.
The DAILY publishing at Live Action News is only made possible through generous people, like you, who give $5, $10, or $25.
Your gift today will not only keep these stories coming in 2020, but also help us open more eyes and change minds to be fully pro-life and save lives.
Will you join us in creating a world where the killing of preborn children is unthinkable and support Live Action News by making your tax-deductible gift today?