Pro-abortion 'story-telling' organization launches litigation arm

Abortion in America, the 'abortion story-telling' organization founded by former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards before her death from cancer, has launched a new litigation arm called Amplify Legal.

The goal of Amplify Legal, led by Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Molly Duane, is to help women who claim they have been harmed by pro-life laws.

Key Takeaways:

• Abortion in America, a pro-abortion storytelling group founded by the late Cecile Richards, has launched a litigation arm, Amplify Legal, aimed at helping women sue states when they don't get the abortions they want.

• Amplify Legal will be led by attorney Molly Duane, who lost a major lawsuit against Texas in which 20 women sued the state, claiming they had been denied medical care because of the state's pro-life law.

• Pro-life laws do not prevent women from receiving miscarriage care or care in medical emergencies.

• It is the voices of women harmed by the abortion industry itself that need to be amplified, but those on the side of the wealthy and powerful abortion industry have, for decades, dismissed their voices and failed to advocate for them.

The Details:

According to Fortune, Amplify Legal will "pose questions such as: If a patient loses their fertility because a hospital refuses to provide reproductive care in an emergency, should that hospital be responsible for that patient’s future IVF bills? If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy against her will in a state where abortion is banned, should that state be required to provide support for the child?"

More than 300 people have shared stories with Abortion in America, claiming that they have been harmed by pro-life laws. Many of them have asked for legal assistance. “Sharing your story publicly is one important way to prevent what happened to you from happening to anyone else,” says Lauren Peterson, who co-founded Abortion in America with Richards and Kaitlyn Joshua. “Bringing a lawsuit is another very concrete way to do that.” 

However, it is not medically necessary to directly and intentionally kill preborn children.

The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?"

The Backstory:

Abortion in America was launched by former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, Kaitlyn Joshua, writer Lauren Peterson, and others in 2024. Joshua appears to be one of the storytellers, and she claimed that Louisiana's pro-life law prevented her from receiving miscarriage care.

She claimed that two emergency rooms sent her away because of the state's pro-life law, but treatment for miscarriage is not the same as an induced abortion and no law prohibits miscarriage care. Read more on Joshua's story and Louisiana's law here.

Why It Matters:

The stories shared through Abortion in America are similar to those shared by pro-abortion media groups since the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The claim is always the same: that a woman was denied a medically necessary abortion and suffered because of it.

However, when examined closely, the truth behind the stories is always revealed — intentionally killing the baby in an abortion was not necessary and many of the women sharing their stories were victims of medical neglect, not victims of a pro-life law.

In many of the stories, such as the arguably most famous one of Kate Cox, the claim is that the mother's life is at risk. This was not true for Cox. Her baby had Trisomy 18, a condition that could have led to death shortly after birth or a life with disabilities, and Cox did not want to take any of the risks associated with pregnancy to give birth to a baby who was not "healthy."

But even in cases in which a mother's life is truly at risk, it can be proven that her baby does not need to be intentionally killed. If a pregnancy must end, the baby can be delivered without being killed first. If the intent of the delivery is not to kill the baby but to save the mother, this is not an abortion. It is an early induced delivery in an emergency situation. There is not a single state law that prohibits this. If doctors fail to properly treat a woman, it is often due to medical neglect — not pro-life laws.

Duane previously argued and lost a case for the Center for Reproductive Rights against Texas, representing 20 women (including Amanda Zurawski) who claimed that the state's pro-life laws prevented them from getting medical care. The Texas Supreme Court rejected the challenge brought by Duane.

The Bottom Line:

For decades, women who were harmed by abortion have told of how they were coerced or even physically forced by medical staff or significant others to abort. But so often, these women had little to no recourse against the wealthy, powerful abortion industry.

And some women didn't survive to seek legal help for their abortion injuries.

It is the voices of the women harmed by the abortion industry itself that need to be amplified, but those on the abortion industry's side have, for decades, dismissed their voices and failed to advocate for them.

They have ignored and swept under the rug decades of harm done to women and preborn babies by abortion, yet now they claim being unable to kill has caused women the true harm. It's a slap in the face to post-abortive women everywhere.