Blog

“Indiana lawmakers – and the people they represent – should have the right to decide whether their hard-earned tax dollars end up in the hands of the abortion industry,” said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (05-28-2013) –The United States Supreme Court rejected an opportunity to review a lower court decision preventing Indiana from cutting off Medicaid funding from abortion providers. In the case, Indiana lawmakers prohibited federal and state taxpayer funding from going to entities, such as Planned Parenthood, that provide abortions. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Planned Parenthood v. Indiana that state lawmakers cannot prohibit otherwise-qualified abortion providers from receiving reimbursement through Medicaid, ostensibly for “family planning” and other services, because they perform abortions.

“The Court missed an opportunity to clarify, once and for all, that states may cut the abortion industry off from all sources of taxpayer funding,” observed Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “Big Abortion has no constitutional right to force Americans to support its deadly industry with tax dollars.”

But the case did offer a silver lining, noted Dr. Yoest. “While we are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take this case, the Court’s decision allows one aspect of the Seventh Circuit’s ruling to stand: it is constitutional for states to prohibit non-Medicaid public funds from being awarded to abortion providers,” she noted.

However, the Seventh Circuit rejected Indiana’s legitimate justifications for denying Medicaid funding to entities that provide abortions.

“In fact, Indiana made a well-reasoned determination that bankrolling the abortion industry violates the state’s public policy, and abortion providers are, therefore, not qualified to receive taxpayer funds, including Medicaid funds” stated Yoest.

AUL has developed cutting-edge model legislation, including the Defunding the Abortion Industry and Advancing Women’s Health Act, to assist states with defunding abortion providers and protecting women and their unborn children in a manner similar to the Indiana law. For more information on this and other AUL model legislation found in Defending Life, click here.

“This terrible decision from the 9^th Circuit ignores the growing body of evidence that late-term abortions are dangerous for women” noted AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “And yet a woman receiving an abortion at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die than she was in the first trimester.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. (05-22-2013) – Ignoring the growing body of evidence detailing abortion’s harms to women, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Arizona’s prohibition of abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, despite the fact that the risks to maternal health dramatically increase with such later-term abortion procedures. The troubling ruling involved a unique piece of model legislation from Americans United for Life that limits abortion later in pregnancy because of the health risks of abortion for women, as well as the pain inflicted on the unborn infant during the abortion.

“Once again, we see unelected judges ignoring the troubling medical evidence about the impact of late-term abortions on women,” observed Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “Instead, such judges continue to act as a self-appointed and unelected ‘Abortion Control Board’ and insist on allowing unregulated, unmonitored and dangerous later-term procedures.”

In the faulty ruling, the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel claimed that no state can prohibit abortion before viability (around 23 to 24 weeks), regardless of whether later-term abortion substantially increases the mother’s risk of death. Most of the 195 nations in the world limit abortion between 12 and 20 weeks, in part because of the dangers of such later-term procedures. Only the United States, North Korea, China and Canada allow abortions through all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever (including sex-selection), and sometimes with taxpayer subsidies.

Dr. Yoest commented: “Two weeks ago, a jury of Americans in Philadelphia expressed their horror at late-term abortions; today, three judges said that late-term abortions must continue  despite the deliberative action of the Arizona legislature, the elected representatives of the people of the state.  This is an extreme disservice to the women of Arizona.”

“Substantial medical data—utilized even by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute—demonstrates that a woman seeking an abortion in Arizona at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester.  At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester.  But these judges incorrectly decided that the ‘abortion right’ is so enshrined in Supreme Court precedent that states cannot even enact restrictions aimed at protecting maternal health.  The message is clear: abortion is more important than protecting women’s lives.”

In a concurring opinion, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld indicated that his hands are tied by the “viability rule,” but noted that it is an “odd rule” because viability changes as medicine improves—meaning that there is no threshold rule for states to follow that can withstand the test of time.

The law was based in substantial part on AUL’s “Women’s Health Defense Act,” and AUL’s Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe testified in the legislature on behalf of the bill.  AUL expects the state of Arizona to request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the case.  The 20-week prohibitions of abortion in several other states remain in effect.

For more information on AUL’s cutting-edge model legislation found in Defending Life, click here