Pro-Lifers on 'Disappointing' Ruling: Next President More Important than Ever - CBN News Abigail Robertson

Pro-Lifers on 'Disappointing' Ruling: Next President More Important than Ever

06-28-2016

CBN News Abigail Robertson

WASHINGTON – In a controversial ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges. The law also requires clinics to meet hospital-like safety stands for outpatient surgery.

Hundreds awaited Monday as the dramatic day played out at the high court.

The issue: the abortion and Texas access law that closed all but a handful of clinics in the Lone Star State over failure to meet state health standards. In ruling against the Texas law, pro-life advocates say the court missed an opportunity to protect women.

"It's extremely disappointing to see five unelected and unaccountable justices make this decision that hurts women," said Arina Grossu, director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council. "This case is about women's health and safety standards and they have refused to protect women. And this is going to mean that more women are going to continue to be hurt and even die in these abortion facilities."

Pro-choice advocates argue that facilities are safe enough and their concern is over access.

"I believe that the fact that the laws have made it so – there's so few abortion clinics – proves the fact that the laws are making a lower access to abortion versus making a safer abortion," one pro-choice advocate responded. "So I believe that access is really important and I'm really happy that we won."

Justices in the majority felt the Texas regulations pose an obstacle to women seeking abortions and could force women in dire circumstances to seek out unlicensed practitioners.

"Basically he said that these were new standards," Steve Aden, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said. "He ignored the fact that they were consistent with the standards that [they] were applied by Texas to outpatient surgical facilities across the board, and he said they just simply closed too many clinics."

Lawyers for the Texas state law are discouraged by the ruling, but they think many clinics will remain closed because the overall demand for abortion is decreasing.  

"The reason that clinics are closing by and large across the country is because abortion is more and more unpopular. That's a wonderful thing," Aden said.

"We know that the majority of Millennials, my generation, the majority of college-aged women are pro-life and we're going to continue fighting for them," Jane Riccardi with Students for Life of America said.

The decision has spurred pro-choice groups to continue fighting for the lives of the unborn. They're planning to go after other states with strict clinic regulations.

"This is a rallying point for the presidential election," Concerned Women for America President Penny Nance said. "There are huge implications for the unborn in this next election and I call on every pro-life American to make sure they vote."

"We're going to work very hard to make sure we have better justices and overturn this decision," Nance said. "We're not done."

Pro-life leaders say this decision underscores the importance of electing a pro-life president in 2016 since the next president will appoint at least one new justice to the Supreme Court.

22-Week Viability: An Abortion Game-Changer?

By Heather Sells

CBN News Reporter

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Ad Feedback

A new study shows that babies born as early as 22 weeks who receive active medical treatment have a chance at survival.

The New England Journal of Medicine reports survival rates at 23 percent for babies born at 22 weeks, and 33 percent for babies born at 23 weeks.

Active treatment includes the use of breathing machines, feeding tubes, and heart resuscitation.

For babies that only received so-called comfort care, the survival rates declined to 5 percent for those born at 22 weeks, and 24 percent for those born at 23 weeks.

The study involved nearly 5,000 babies born before 27 weeks at 24 hospitals.

A new bill by House Republicans would require doctors performing late-term abortions to take steps to help aborted babies deemed viable survive. Arina Grossu, with the Family Research Council, shares her thoughts on the bill and its significance below:

Survival without severe impairment was also higher with active treatment: 15 percent versus 3 percent at 22 weeks, and 25 percent versus 18 percent at 23 weeks.

The study found that hospitals vary in their treatment of extremely premature newborns.Four hospitals in the study never actively treated babies at 22 weeks, but five other hospitals did so consistently.

Dr. Edward Bell, with the University of Iowa, one of the study's leaders, said parents need to know that "the hospital that you go to might determine what happens to your baby."

Another study leader, medical student Matthew Rysavy, said hospitals should give parents better information on survival rates -- not just by gestational age but also by what happens if active care is given.

"A doctor might say 'no 22-week infant has ever survived,' but that might mask the fact that doctors there don't try because they don't consider such babies viable," Rysavy said.

About 12,000 babies are born between 22 and 25 weeks each year in the United States. A full-term pregnancy is considered to be about 40 weeks.

Despite medical advances, the rates of cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, asthma, and other major problems have not changed much for extremely premature babies.

The study marks the first major look in the United States at how preemies fare according to the care they get and it could affect the debate on abortion.

The Supreme Court has said that states must allow abortion if an unborn baby is not viable outside the womb.

Until now, most medical experts have considered that age to be 24 weeks. However, medical groups are now discussing whether to lower the consensus on the age of viability.

Pro-Life Leaders Furious over Obamacare Abortion Funds

By Paul Strand

CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent

Friday, September 19, 2014

WASHINGTON -- Outraged lawmakers and pro-life leaders gathered outside the U.S. Capitol building Thursday to demand Congress put an end to Obamacare's massive funding of health care plans that pay for abortions

They pointed out past laws specifically forbid this, but Obamacare is ignoring that legislation and the president's own promises that no taxpayer dollars would subsidize abortion.

The speakers at the Capitol Hill news conference were reacting to a new Government Accountability Office report showing massive federal funding of abortion is allowed for under the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare.

"One thousand-thirty six plans cover elective abortions and are subsidized by taxpayer funds," Arina Grossu, with the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity, said.

"You not only can't keep your doctor, you also can't avoid supporting abortion if you're a taxpayer in this country given Obamacare," Ovide LaMontagne, general counsel of Americans United for Life, said.

The Hyde Amendment passed by Congress in 1977 has made it illegal for taxpayer money to pay for abortion. President Obama also pledged during negotiations over the Affordable Care Act that would continue.

Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said the opposite has happened.

"Obama promised up and down, right and left, that abortion would not be covered in the health care law, and that Americans could be assured on his promise that the Hyde protections that we've known since the 1970s would still be covered in the health care law," Monahan told CBN News. "Well, unfortunately, we know now that President Obama has broken his promises."

"Nancy Pelosi said you wouldn't know what's in the bill unless you pass it - except for this: President Obama and the leadership of Congress said there would be no federal subsidies of abortion coverage," LaMontagne added. "And they have either lied or been grossly negligent in enforcing and following up on their promises."

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., helps lead the pro-life caucus in the House of Representatives.

"Agree or disagree with abortion funding, and thankfully a majority of Americans do not want public funds being used for abortion, but people don't like to be deceived. They don't like to be lied to," he said. "And that's exactly what has happened here."

"These massive subsidies for abortion-covering plans amount to a sharp break from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment," Susan Muskett, with the National Right to Life Committee, added.

Smith agreed.

"It is completely, totally, absolutely contrary to the Hyde Amendment," he said.

Smith and other pro-life legislators spearheaded a move in the House to fix the problem with a bill called HR7 but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to let the Senate vote on its version of that bill.

"Polls have shown that Americans don't want abortion coverage in their plans. And they also don't support federal funds for abortion," Melissa Swearingen, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said. "The best solution would be a simple and clean fix. Enact HR7, which is the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.' It does basically what it says in the title: it prohibits federal funds going to abortion."

"But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has prevented Senate action on identical legislation," Muskett pointed out.

"Sen. Reid when he was in the House was one of the most pro-life members of the House of Representatives," Smith said. "His record was identical to that of Henry Hyde."

In the spirit of that record, Smith asked Sen. Reid to get out of the way and let the Senate vote to make it so taxpayer money can't be used to pay for abortions.

The GAO report found that every single Obamacare taxpayer subsidized plan in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont pays for abortion on demand.

In New York, 405 of the 426 subsidized plans subsidize abortion on demand. In California, it's 86 of the 90 subsidized plans, and in Massachusetts, 109 of 111.