Blog

Abortion Proponents Argue Against Medical Standards of Care

By Mailee Smith
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

What happens when abortion providers don’t follow practices of standard medical care?

You get Kermit Gosnell.  Or Steven Brigham and Nicola Riley.  You get unsafe, unsanitary conditions. 

You get a “back alley.”

In order to better protect the health and welfare of women seeking abortion, states regulate abortion clinics and require informed consent before obtaining an abortion.  For example, abortion clinic regulations and ultrasound provisions help ensure that women are treated in the manner they deserve.

A basic component of an ultrasound law is a required standard of care.  A “standard of care” is “a statement of actions consistent with minimum safe professional conduct under specific conditions, as determined by professional peer organizations.”  Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (20th ed. 2005).  In the ultrasound context, this means that abortion providers are to perform an ultrasound in a professional manner consistent with the way ultrasound is performed across the abortion or obstetrics communities.

But abortion proponents are arguing against including a basic standard of care in ultrasound requirements. 

For example, ultrasound bills are currently making their way through the Virginia legislature.  Contained in these bills is a provision that the ultrasound “shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community.”  In other words, abortion providers must follow a basic standard of care.  They shouldn’t conduct the ultrasound haphazardly.  They shouldn’t throw an image of the woman’s gall bladder on the screen and claim that it is “products of conception.”

But without merit, abortion proponents are claiming that this standard of care provision requires a transvaginal ultrasound in the first trimester, comparing the technique to rape.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

These bills require abortion providers to perform ultrasound in the way it is performed in the community.  Do abortionists regularly use transvaginal ultrasound in the first trimester?  NO.  Do obstetricians regularly use transvaginal ultrasound in the first trimester?  NO.  To the contrary, the usual procedure is to perform an abdominal ultrasound.

Abortionists typically perform ultrasound (abdominally) before abortion.  So what is this all about? 

It is about politics.  The Governor of Virginia is thought to be a potential Vice President candidate.  These ultrasound bills are moving through the legislature, making them targets.  And abortion proponents are using the welfare of women as a political pawn, sacrificing standard medical care on the altar of abortion on demand.

If abortion proponents succeed in removing the standard of care language in this bill, they will attempt to do so again, in other states and in other bills.  And when medical standards of care are removed, we are left with an industry of Kermit Gosnells.

This is also a last-ditch effort to thwart the passage of a commonsense bill aimed at the protection of women.  The abortion industry is reeling.  The American public is more pro-life than ever before.  And contained in the Virginia bills is a requirement that the abortion provider offer the woman an opportunity to see the image of her unborn child.  This is the last thing an abortion provider wants. 

For too long, the abortion industry has been trying to hide information from women.  The most accurate, truthful information we can give to a woman is an ultrasound picture of her unborn child. 

The abortion industry hates these bills because they allow a woman to see what abortion providers so fervently try to hide: life.

The Alabama Supreme Court released an important decision in Hamilton v. Scott today.

By Legal Staff
Friday, February 17th, 2012

The Alabama Supreme Court unanimously held that the court’s September 2011 decision in Mack v. Carmack, WL 3963006 (Ala. Sept. 9, 2011), extending the scope of Alabama’s wrongful death statute, includes the unborn child from the point of conception. Americans United for Life has supported these legal developments in the courts and in state and federal legislatures since the 1970s.

In addition, in footnote 3 on page 13, the Justices cite the “Declaration of Rights” in the Alabama Constitution as a basis for their decision:  “we note that this Court’s holding in Mack is consistent with the Declaration of Rights in the Alabama Constitution, which states that “all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Ala. Const. 1901, § 1 (emphasis added). “

Justice Parker, who wrote the unanimous decision, also wrote a special concurring opinion, joined by three other justices, Stuart, Bolin and Wise.  Parker’s concurring opinion addresses the limits of Roe v. Wade and how it does not apply outside the abortion area.  He also points out some of the weaknesses of Roe, with particular emphasis on how Roe’s “viability” rule has not been influential outside of abortion law.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Hamilton v. Scott is the most recent example of how state courts and state legislatures have given increasing legal protection to the unborn child from conception in state criminal and tort law.

Americans United for Life Files a brief regarding the Constitutionality of the Abortion Mandate in President Obama’s Healthcare Law before the U.S. Supreme Court

By Americans United for Life
Monday, February 13th, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. (02-13-12) – Americans United for Life joined forces with other pro-life legal organizations to file the leading pro-life amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration’s healthcare law, violates the Constitution by forcing Americans to pay for abortion.

AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, “President Obama’s healthcare overhaul includes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that blatantly violates the conscience rights and First Amendment religious rights of millions of Americans.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it require Americans to violate their beliefs and pay for abortions.”

“The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Affordable Care Act was ‘an unprecedented exercise of congressional power.’ Today’s amicus brief demonstrates to the Supreme Court that there is another reason why the Eleventh Circuit was correct in their analysis,” she said.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Act—that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government-approved insurance or pay a penalty—is an “abortion premium mandate.”  This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.  As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

“Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen a clear abortion agenda hidden in the pages of the healthcare law through the controversy surrounding the abortion-inducing drug mandate,” said Dr.Yoest. “Forcing either companies or individuals to pay for abortion-inducing drugs against their consciences is a clear violation of the rights of individuals under the First Amendment. This case is further evidence that abortion is included throughout the healthcare law.

AUL joined lead counsel Bioethics Defense Fund, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Life Legal Defense Foundation in filing a brief on behalf of American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro-Life Nurses, and Medical Students for Life of America.

The brief is here.

Fifth Circuit Denies Request for New Hearing: Comprehensive Texas Ultrasound Law Still Stands

By Kellie Fiedorek
Friday, February 10th, 2012

Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stood by its decision to ensure that women have the ability to receive all “truthful, non-misleading” information available to them before choosing an abortion, and denied the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)’s request for a new hearing regarding the Texas ultrasound law.

On January 10, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s injunction against a newly enacted Texas ultrasound law’s enforcement, and issued a unanimous decision upholding the law.  The Court’s decision to allow the ultrasound law to go into effect ensured that women will receive information on the consequences of abortion to their unborn children, allowing them to make a fully informed decision.

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)—who does not want women to receive complete and accurate information before making this important medical decision—filed a petition on January 24, 2012 for a rehearing en banc, asking that the entire appellate court hear the case.  Today, however, the Court again placed women’s health and safety above abortion advocates who refuse to allow women access to truthful, medical information.  The Court denied CRR’s request for a new hearing, which means that Texas’ ultrasound law will remain in effect.

As the Fifth Circuit noted in its January ruling, the disclosure of the ultrasound, the fetal heartbeat, and accompanying medical descriptions are “the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information.”  It is this critical information that truly advances women’s health and empowers women to make informed decisions.

In January, AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest debated Nancy Keenan of NARAL on Fox News ChannelWatch Dr. Yoest discuss Texas’ important sonogram law and the positive impact this law will have on women.

AUL advised on the Texas ultrasound bill before its passage, and has advised the Texas Solicitor General in his defense of the law before the Fifth Circuit.

Americans United for Life says Obama Administration’s Strained Health Care Policy Pronouncement “turns Roe on its head”

By Americans United for Life
Friday, February 10th, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. (02-10-12) – Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said that the Obama Administration continues to force the abortion-inducing drugs mandate in its preventive health care guidelines, despite today’s ”strained attempt to gloss over a fatally-flawed policy that does not address women’s health care needs.”

Dr. Yoest made the following statement: “It is clear that Americans need Congress to step in to protect their rights of conscience under the law and to end their forced participation in President Obama’s abortion-inducing drug mandate.

“The preventive healthcare guidelines include ella, a drug that ends unborn life. This is not necessary health care for women.

“Once again, the Obama Administration is taking a step in the wrong direction. This new pronouncement turns Roe v. Wade on its head. In Roe, the courts said that abortion was a privacy right. In this health care dictate, the Obama administration announces plans to invade the privacy of women by requiring insurance companies to inquire about their private choices and offer free drugs. And the administration announces that insurance companies will take on this burden at no cost to anyone.

“And it is incredibly naive to believe that this will not cost either women or their employers. Insurance companies will surely take the projected expenses of these efforts into account when pricing coverage.

“It is time for permanent protections for people’s rights of conscience, as well as the rejection of the preventive care plan at HHS that include the abortion-inducing drug mandate.”

Americans United for Life Supports Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn’s Call for Planned Parenthood Hearings

By Jeff Quinton
Thursday, February 9th, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. (02-09-12) – Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest commended Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) who on Wednesday sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) calling for “a full-scale series of Congressional hearings to expose the damage Planned Parenthood has caused to our nation.”

“As Americans United for Life laid out in its comprehensive Report, ‘The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood,’ the abuses at Planned Parenthood provide a compelling and rational basis for denying funding to the abortion giant,” said Dr. Yoest.

In order to further encapsulate the allegations involving the mega-abortion provider, AUL’s Legal Team also produced “Planned Parenthood Abuses: Highlighting Investigations, Audits, and Legal Actions,” a Memorandum released this week that documents current investigations of Planned Parenthood that have been made public, prior investigations of Planned Parenthood, audit reports of Planned Parenthood affiliates or clinics that have found improprieties, and legal actions taken against Planned Parenthood.

“The abuses documented at Planned Parenthood are serious and substantive,” Dr. Yoest noted.  “AUL applauds Congresswoman Blackburn’s call for hearings into questions of financial irregularities at Planned Parenthood and for its failure to comply with laws that protect women and minor girls.”

She continued, “It is important to note that it is the known abuses at Planned Parenthood that triggered the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce—the same Committee that is currently investigating Solyndra–to investigate the breadth and depth of the problems at Planned Parenthood. And I want to thank Marsha Blackburn for her leadership in calling for a thorough accounting of public funds.”

Congresswoman Blackburn serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that launched the investigation of Planned Parenthood last September.

To read Congresswoman Blackburn’s letter, click here. For more on AUL’s “The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood,” click here.

Planned Parenthood’s Documented Scandals and Abuse Merited a Congressional Investigation and Warrant a Congressional Hearing

By Legal Staff
Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Over the past week, the nation witnessed the vicious and intense attacks that Planned Parenthood unleashed on Susan G. Komen for the Cure, one of the nation’s leading organization dedicated to finding life-saving treatment for women with breast cancer.  Planned Parenthood and its allies tried to portray Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood as “political” to evade the truth: the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates have a sordid and documented history of engaging in a pattern of deception and abuse.

Importantly, it is these known abuses at Planned Parenthood that triggered an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce—the same Committee that is currently investigating Solyndra—of PPFA and its affiliates “institutional practices and policies” and their “use of federal funding.”

The Committee is seeking to determine the breadth and depth of the problems at Planned Parenthood.  Unfortunately for Planned Parenthood, facts thoroughly discredit its attempt to deceive the American public.  Planned Parenthood is using “political reasons” as a scapegoat to evade its documented failure to comply with federal and state laws and its utter disregard for the health and safety of women and young girls.

It is only commonsense that Komen—whose mission is to improve American women’s access to breast cancer screenings and life-saving treatments—would seek to ensure that it makes grants to deserving organizations that can best provide these important services, particularly to poor and vulnerable women.  However, as is evident from the dishonest and extreme attacks against Komen orchestrated by Planned Parenthood and its supporters, the abortion giant refuses to face the consequences of its systemic and institutional abuses – abuses that may disqualify it from receiving future Komen grants.

Moreover, as other entities reconsider their funding priorities, Planned Parenthood and its allies will likely continue to issue threats and engage in bullying tactics to avoid the natural consequences of its malfeasance.  Thankfully, Planned Parenthood cannot hide or escape from the reality that it is currently under investigation by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.  And for good cause.

The abuses at Planned Parenthood provide a compelling and rationale basis for denying funding to the abortion giant – a justification that is not “political.”  In order to further encapsulate that rationale, AUL’s Legal Team has produced Planned Parenthood Abuses: Highlighting Investigations, Audits, and Legal Actions,” a Memorandum that documents some of the abuses at Planned Parenthood that warrant investigation.  (Further documentation can be found in AUL’s comprehensive Report released this past July, “The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood.”)  Persuasive evidence appears to show a systemic and organization-wide pattern of violating federal and state laws, a blatant disregard for women’s health and safety, and pervasive endangerment of minors at Planned Parenthood.  The burden of proof is on Planned Parenthood to prove that it is worthy of continued funding and support.

Last week’s controversy over funding the nation’s largest abortion provider is rooted in facts—the lives of real women and girls forever changed by the abuses that have taken place inside Planned Parenthood for years.

  • Is it “political” to want to safeguard America’s minor girls from being victimized by sexual predators?
  • Is it “political” to seek to ensure a minor girl’s parents are involved in the life-changing medical decisions their daughter may make?
  • Is it “political” to investigate an organization’s apparent willingness to partner with sex-traffickers?
  • Is it “political” to enforce mandatory reporting laws to ensure America’s minor girls are not exploited?
  • Is it “political” to ensure that an organization that receives over $1 million dollars a day from the American taxpayer—where documented misuse of federal funding already exists—is complying with the law and using federal funding properly?

This Memorandum and the AUL Report, “The Case for Investigation Planned Parenthood,” document Planned Parenthood’s abuses.  Planned Parenthood cannot be allowed to continue to evade the consequences of its actions.  It is rightly being investigated because Planned Parenthood has failed to demonstrate it is the “trusted provider” it holds itself out to be.

Americans United for Life wins “Grassroots Organization of the Year” for 2011

By Americans United for Life
Thursday, February 9th, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. (02-09-12) – Americans United for Life, the legal arm of the pro-life movement and the oldest national pro-life organization, received a prestigious Weyrich Award for “Grassroots Organization of the Year” for 2011 Wednesday night, during an event leading into the annual CPAC conference. AUL develops model legislation for state and federal legislators, distributed each year through its guidebook Defending Life. Last year, AUL achieved passage of 28 bills based on AUL models or with AUL’s assistance.

“Americans United for Life was honored to be recognized for the success of our signature contribution to the pro-life movement – our work in drafting strategic and effective, Constitionally-sound legislation combined with the political skills to achieve passage,” said AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “This award is a credit to AUL’s premier legal team who develop the legislation, and the thousands of pro-life activists across the country who use the legislative tools to ensure that everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

Dr. Yoest noted that during the 2011 state legislative session at least 86 bills were introduced in 32 states that were based on AUL’s model language and on which AUL consulted and advised. The passage of 28 pieces of pro-life legislation was a significant pro-life victory, and represents increasing strength in the pro-life movement.

AUL’s experts testified 21 times, supporting 20 pro-life bills and opposing legislation in Hawaii that would have compromised healthcare freedom of conscience. AUL distributed more than 1,600 copies of our model legislation (with accompanying policy guides) to individuals in 47 states and beyond.

Dr. Yoest noted that AUL’s legislative agenda for 2012 includes more innovative legislation designed to defund Planned Parenthood, reverse Roe v. Wade, counter the abortion mandate in Obamacare, and protect rights of conscience. These models are currently available from the AUL legal team and the fully updated version of Defending Life 2012 will soon be released.

The Weyrich Awards Dinner honors the legacy of leadership of the late Paul Weyrich.

Paul Weyrich was the first president of the Heritage Foundation; a founder and past director of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); the founder and Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation; and the National Chairman of Coalitions for America. A former radio news reporter and director, Paul came to Washington initially as an aide to Senator Gordon Allott of Colorado.

Current Heritage Foundation President Dr. Ed Feulner chaired the evening. The Weyrich Awards Dinner honors those who have made a major contribution to advancing the cause of liberty through organizations and media and whose work reflects beliefs, principles and convictions that are harmonious with Paul’s own values. The dinner was held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC.

New Hampshire House passed Americans United for Life’s resolution, HCR 31, honoring the work of pregnancy care centers

By Americans United for Life
Thursday, February 9th, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. (02-09-12) – Americans United for Life  applauded the New Hampshire House for passing HCR 31, a resolution honoring the work of pregnancy care centers. Jeanneane Maxon, AUL Vice President of External Affairs and Corporate Counsel, testified in favor of the resolution, which now moves to the state Senate, calling it “a long-overdue expression of gratitude to the selfless work of those dedicated to helping pregnant women and mothers.”

Maxon, is visiting pregnancy centers in New Hampshire and Vermont this week and made the following statement following the House vote:

“As the daughter and sister of pregnancy care center directors, and having grown up in the pregnancy center movement since age seven, I can personally attest that pregnancy care centers are some of our nation’s most worthy charities.  Primarily volunteer manned, they provide compassionate care to women and families who are often facing the most significant challenge of their lives. They provide a hope that cannot be found in the abortion clinic.

“Pregnancy centers in New Hampshire offer their services free of charge, including needed medical services such as ultrasounds, pregnancy confirmation, and sexually transmitted disease testing–thereby saving state governments millions of dollars in needed funds.  And their clients love the help they receive.  In fact, a recent survey revealed that centers have a 97% client satisfaction rate.

“It is clear that women don’t want abortions. Women often feel like they have no choice but abortion due to their circumstances.  And here is where pregnancy centers step in and make all the difference.  They simply tell women, ‘You do not have to have an abortion if you don’t want to.  We will do all we can to help you.’ As a result 9 out of 10 women who enter a Care Net pregnancy center choose life.  It is only right and fitting that the State of New Hampshire and states across this nation honor their life-saving and selfless work.”

A Counting Lesson for the Obama White House: Why Women AND Catholics are troubled by the violations of conscience in the health care law

By Anna Franzonello
Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Noting that the Obama Administration’s “contraceptive” mandate continues to draw intense criticism, an article on Politico today stated, “The problem illustrates the complexities of Obama’s election-year calculus: Walk back the decision, and enrage women voters, a group he must woo to win reelection. Stick to it, and risk inflaming Catholics, a critical swing bloc that he can’t afford to lose too badly.

However, this characterization— that the issue is one of Catholics v. women— misses the mark.  These are not mutually exclusive groups. My faith and my gender are not at odds on the Obama Administration’s mandate that private insurance plans cover all FDA approved contraception, a definition which includes the abortion-inducing drug ella.

Polling demonstrates that I am not the odd-woman on this point.

An August Rasmussen poll revealed, 46% oppose forcing “contraceptive” coverage, while only 39% approve.  This is a stark contrast to the talking points of the Obama Administration which seek to paint opposition to its coercive measure as being a loud, but tiny, minority – consisting almost exclusively of Catholic bishops.

The issue is clearly not one of women versus men, either.  Women’s opinion, according to the Rasmussen poll, was nearly evenly split.  Only 40% of women approve, while 42% of women oppose the mandate.

Of note, Rasmussen did not mention that life-ending drugs and devices, such as the abortion-inducing drug ella, are included in the Obama Administration’s mandate.  Rather, the question posed was general, “Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?”  It is probable that opposition to the mandate would have polled even higher had the full extent of the mandate’s nature been explained.

The Obama Administration is not “inflaming” merely Catholics, and many women would welcome—rather than be “enraged” by—a repeal of the mandate.  Certainly, far more Americans oppose the coercive measure than the narrowly-defined category of “religious employers” that the Obama Administration is willing to exempt.

View The Blog Archive
Blog Archives: