Abortion Blog

As Senate Democrats foil legislation to treat abortion survivors, “Who weeps for the victim?”

By Maria V. Gallagher, Legislative Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation

Outrage. That was the number-one emotion lighting up my Facebook page, as friend after friend expressed their deep and justified anger at the blockage of a U.S. Senate bill to stop infanticide by the nearly uniform opposition of Senate Democrats.

Although the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act received 53 votes, 60 votes were required to move the bill forward (in the jargon, “invoke cloture”). And I have to ask myself, “Why?”

Why is it that duly elected lawmakers would not want to ensure that a baby born alive from a botched abortion is guaranteed the same care any other preemie of a similar age would receive? Why would our government leaders fail in protecting the most vulnerable among us?

I suppose I could come up with a number of reasons—a lack of compassion, a blindness toward the essential needs of newborns, a callousness that comes from too many years in the political world serving the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

But I believe the fundamental rationale for Monday’s chilling vote dates back more than 40 years, to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade. That tragic court decision, which still holds fast today, brought about a shocking disregard for innocent human life.

For once a baby is aborted in a mother’s womb, what’s to prevent attacks on babies who have actually been born? The line of “acceptability” moves further and further until our nation’s leaders shrug at infanticide.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), alluded to the ideological smokescreen put up by the bill’s opponents: “I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air. That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”

Yet, to the vast majority of Senate Democrats, everything is about abortion. They are willing to stop at nothing to defend the brutal practice, in which a baby dies, and a mother is left to grieve her lost child. Pro-abortion politics taints whatever it touches, and now the Senate is forever stained by this tragic vote.

As my father used to say, “Who weeps for the victim?” Time and again, it is the pro-lifer who defends the innocent from the dawn of life to the twilight of life.

And what about those Democratic Presidential candidates in the Senate who sided with infanticide? Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren? Remember their names, especially as the campaign season intensifies over the coming year.

It is our responsibility to remind them why they are ultimately on the losing side, whether they recognize it or not. History will side with life, and generations hence will wonder at the utter intransigence of those who fail to defend the right to life.

The post As Senate Democrats foil legislation to treat abortion survivors, “Who weeps for the victim?” appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Legislation

PPFA celebrates defeat of bill to treat abortion survivors

By Dave Andrusko

I mean this sincerely. Is there anything that could be done to an unborn baby in her mother’s womb that Planned Parenthood would say, “No, of course not. This goes too far, even for us.”

Answer? Of course not. Suck them out, dismember them, poison them—what difference does that make? The objective is to get those babies dead.

How this is accomplished is between the aborting women and her abortionist. If the baby were to suffer unimaginable pain, well such is the price of “bodily autonomy.”

I also mean this sincerely. What if a baby makes it through the abortion mill’s gauntlet and is born alive? Is there anything that could be done (besides, perhaps, wrapping her in a blanket) to save that baby that would be obligatory? That is, you must do because it is what is normally done to any premature baby born at the same age?

And the answer, of course, is no. Which is why Planned Parenthood celebrated the defeat of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) Proponents had a majority but (thanks to nearly uniform Democrat opposition) not the 60 votes necessary to move forward (“invoke cloture”).

Here a couple of examples:

And from the President of PPFA

“Shame women”? “To require that medical professionals give the same standard care and medical treatment to newborn babies who have survived an attempted abortion as any other newborn baby would receive in any other circumstance,” as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday? Does even Dr. Wen believe this drivel?

“Stoke fear and division”? You mean among the 77% of Americans who agree that “a baby who survives a failed abortion would be given the same medical treatment as any other baby born prematurely at the same age”? I think it is Dr. Wen who is stoking division, wouldn’t you agree?

“Limit our access to health care and take way our rights”? Whose “health care” is being limited? The abortion survivor’s! Whose “rights” are being taken away? The child who no longer is insider her mother’s womb, that’s who.

What has taken place in states like New York and Virginia and Vermont and New Mexico and Illinois, to name just a few, someday will be seen as the bottoming out of the anti-life ethos. With a manufactured “crisis” about the overturning of Roe in the next 15 minutes, they are obliterating all limitations on abortion throughout all “40 weeks” (to quote the sponsor of the Virginia “Repeal Bill”) and declared open season on abortion survivors.

It is the natural progression (in a manner of speaking) of the anti-life ethos. There can never, ever be enough abortions. There can never, ever be requirements to treat abortion survivors as human beings with human rights.

They must be stopped.

The post PPFA celebrates defeat of bill to treat abortion survivors appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Judicial Missouri

Obama appointee refuses Planned Parenthood’s third request for injunction against Missouri law requiring admitting privileges

By Dave Andrusko

U.S. District Judge
Brian Wimes

Give Planned Parenthood credit. They keep testing Missouri’s law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and they keep getting shot down.

On Friday Rudi Keller of the Columbia Daily Tribune reported that Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes “refused to issue a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Columbia.” The ruling “was in response to a third request for an injunction, filed after the clinic was notified in December that it had met every licensing that it had met every licensing requirement except the hospital privileges rule.”

Judge Wimes found, according to Keller, “that attorneys for Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains had not shown that regulations requiring abortion providers have hospital privileges are a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the path of women seeking an abortion.”

As Keller observed, there are various criteria for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, including “irreparable harm” and a likelihood of winning a lawsuit. Judge Wimes zeroed in on the latter since that has been “most important factor” for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Planned Parenthood based its lawsuit on a litany of complaints (all vigorously contested by the state of Missouri), including an inability to find hospitals willing to give abortionists admitting privileges, overcrowding, and longer waiting times.

Judge Wimes wasn’t buying any of it:

In particular, Plaintiffs do not present evidence of attempts to find physicians with hospital privileges willing to provide abortion services at the Columbia Facility, or evidence of fewer doctors, longer wait times, and increased crowding at RHS [Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood] in St. Louis. …

“In sum, evidence of increased driving distance relative to the privileges requirement standing alone, for purposes of the motion for preliminary injunction, is not sufficient, even when weighed against the assertions of benefits conferred by the privileges requirement, to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”

The impact of Judge Wimes’ ruling means that Missouri will have only clinic offering abortion “services”: Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

Missouri Attorney General
Eric Schmitt

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office has vigorously defended the law. In court filing last January, Schmitt argued that the complication rate from abortions in Missouri “is almost double the national complication rate of 2.1 percent predicted by Plaintiffs’” and then cited a long history of health and safety violations at the Planned Parenthood clinic at Columbia.

He went to detail what Schmitt described as “the four layers, so to speak, of abortion complications” and how the law did not apply just to one abortion clinic.

Fourth, there are the abortion complications that would have occurred but did not, because since 2007 Missouri has imposed reasonable regulations on abortion facilities designed to promote women’s health and safety. In claiming that the St. Louis facility has a strong safety record (which it does not), Plaintiffs overlook that, for the entire relevant time period, the St. Louis facility complied with both the ASC requirements and the hospital-privileges requirement that have been challenged in this case. Even more complications, and more severe complications, would undoubtedly have occurred if abortion facilities had been radically deregulated as Plaintiffs wish.

This point is especially important because the hospital-privileges requirement and other regulations are not directed only to Plaintiffs, or only to the Columbia facility. Rather, they are statewide requirements that prevent abuses and promote safety not just at Plaintiffs’ facilities, but also for “the shoddiest operators” and “the worst providers” [a quote from a Chicago Tribune story].

The post Obama appointee refuses Planned Parenthood’s third request for injunction against Missouri law requiring admitting privileges appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Ireland

Leading Irish hospital makes willingness to do abortions a condition of employment

By Michael Cook

Dublin’s National Maternity Hospital

Only doctors who are willing to perform abortions will be considered for two consultant posts at Dublin’s National Maternity Hospital (NMH). The hospital is advertising for a consultant anesthetist and a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology.

According to a statement from the NMH the positions include the “provision of termination-of-pregnancy services, and are for individuals willing to contribute to the provision of these services.”

A source at the hospital told the Irish Times that conscientious objection guidelines for existing staff would remain as they were before.

Baroness Nuala O’Loan, of Northern Ireland, recently warned that the Republic would be entering “uncharted territory” if it made willingness to perform abortions a condition of employment. What if doctors changed their mind, feeling in conscience that they could no longer participate in abortions, she asked.

After a referendum last year which allowed abortion to be legalised, Ireland is expanding its services quickly to provide abortions. The health department’s budget provides €7 million in funding for abortion services this year and €12 million in 2020.

Editor’s note. This appeared at Bioedge and is reposted with permission.

The post Leading Irish hospital makes willingness to do abortions a condition of employment appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog

Former clinic worker describes aborting baby at 20-22 weeks

By Sarah Terzo

20 week old unborn baby

Former clinic worker Zlata blogs about her time in the abortion industry :

I remember assisting, once in particular, in the operating room at the clinic where I had been a medical assistant for six years. I was standing behind the doctor and could see everything as he was performing an abortion on a woman who was 20 – 22 weeks pregnant.

Late term abortions were usually a two-day process. On the second day the actual abortion was performed. The doctor first removed the laminaria and was then able to reach in with forceps to pull the baby out piece by piece. This procedure is very hard to do and requires a good deal of strength on the part of the doctor.

On that particular day, from my position I was able to see him extracting perfectly formed little arms, legs, toes, fingers, spine and finally the head.

I could see the baby’s face. I don’t know how to describe what I felt at that moment. I realized that we just killed a human being. But at the same time I thought: it is legal, so it must be all right. But my whole being was just screaming against what I just saw. I felt death. I was ashamed and confused as I was staring at the bloody parts of the baby. I can even say I felt the presence of the devil. It was very disturbing. My mind was so blinded by the darkness in it I was unable to do anything.

Sometimes I think about that day and feel that I should have run away, or tried to stop this madness. What were we doing, as medical professionals, as human beings? What happened to our hearts? Where was our compassion?

If this baby had been born prematurely at 20 – 22 weeks it would have had a chance to live. I thought, “People, think about what are you doing. What am I doing?” Think about the consequences of this abortion. Imagine this is you. Imagine you are in the most secure place you could be, in your mother’s womb. You have no idea how cruelly your life will end, how you will be torn to pieces. We betray our children. We interrupt their precious lives so abruptly, so unexpectedly. You think abortion brings relief, but instead it brings emptiness, shame, pain, regret, feelings of death. For six years abortion was the way I put bread on my table. For six years it was my life…

This is only the beginning of my story. My heart is burning more and more to tell everyone the truth. You are going to be hearing from me many, many times. I pray that God, the only God that we all have will open your hearts and give you wisdom and passion to stand up and speak up! WAKE UP, WORLD! WAKE UP!!!

Source: Population Research Institute Review” September/October 2008.

Note: Although this testimony only talks about late-term abortion, earlier abortions are often just is gruesome.

Editor’s note. This appeared at and is reposted with permission.

The post Former clinic worker describes aborting baby at 20-22 weeks appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog

Breaking my silence to protect life

By Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Editor’s note. This appeared in The Hill.

Sen. Mike Braun

After watching Democrats propose or pass laws to legalize abortion up to the moment of birth and considering Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s recent comments about denying life-saving medical care to children born alive after failed late-term abortions, my core convictions moved me to speak up for the unborn.

It’s a centuries-long tradition that freshman senators abstain from speaking on the Senate floor for months to several years before delivering their so-called “maiden speech.”

On my 33rd day in the Senate I delivered my maiden speech, voicing my support for Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R-Neb.) bill to protect born-alive abortion survivors and conveying my outrage that the highest legislative body in the greatest country in the world was debating not just protecting the unborn, but protecting children after they are delivered.

A bill passed and signed into law in 2002 cemented that every infant born alive is a person, a human being, an individual, a child. That bill was passed by a Democrat-controlled Senate because this shouldn’t be up for debate: it’s a simple up-or-down vote on whether a child who has been born has rights, including the right to not be left to die.

I truly hope that the Democratic Party has not moved so far in 17 years that whether or not a born infant deserves medical care has become a contentious issue. I implore my Democratic colleagues to disregard the extreme voices of the abortion industry and radical pro-choice activists in favor of the loud, clear voice of the American people: Late-term abortion is a step too far, and post-birth abortion is horrifying.

Safeguarding life at every stage is a solemn responsibility that Hoosiers have entrusted me to uphold, which is why I will be voting in support of Sen. Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Additionally, I have proudly co-sponsored six other pro-life legislative items including:

  • Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
  • No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019
  • Protect Funding for Women’s Health Care Act
  • Protecting Life in the Global Health Assistance Act
  • Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
  • A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy should be permanently established.

While I will never demonize those who disagree with me, the Hoosier values instilled in me from a young age have always inspired me to protect life and the unborn. That’s why I fully support this legislation and encourage other lawmakers to be bold in backing this important step.

As I said in my maiden speech, Americans who are as disturbed as I am by the Democratic Party’s turn to the extreme on abortion must speak up and demand that their elected officials defend the sanctity of life. Supporting this morally vital legislation to protect life outside the womb is a sadly necessary first step.

Mike Braun is a father of four and U.S. Senator from Indiana.

The post Breaking my silence to protect life appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog

Couple sues Planned Parenthood for $765,000 after botched abortion: report

By Calvin Freiburger

February 22, 2019 – An Idaho couple that traveled to Albuquerque, New Mexico for an abortion is suing two Planned Parenthood branches and a Boise hospital after a failed chemical abortion left them with a living, health-challenged child, demanding the defendants help pick up the tab for their son’s care.

While six weeks pregnant, Bianca Coons and her partner Cristobal Ruiz went to Idaho for an abortion in 2016, the Albuquerque Journal reports. They claimed they were “destitute and attempting to maintain and limit the size of their family” beyond the two kids they already had, and fearing Idaho’s abortion waiting period would “result in the baby being much more advanced in development.”

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood’s San Mateo facility administered the first half of a “medication” abortion (mifepristone, or RU-486), then instructed Coons to take the second half (misoprostol) later.

They went home to Boise, where a day later Coons went to an ER for severe nausea and learned her still-living baby had a “strong heartbeat.” A doctor there consulted Planned Parenthood and relayed its instructions to take the second half of the chemical abortion.

Several days later, Coons requested a second medication abortion if the first failed, and was given the option of either paying for one in Idaho or getting it free if she went back to New Mexico.

By March, Coons told a Planned Parenthood staffer she couldn’t afford a “second round,” with her lawsuit stating that by this point the baby was old enough where she “could not morally sanction further action to terminate the fetus.”

Coons and Ruiz’s son was ultimately born one month premature, suffering “jaundice and blood sugar issues.” His parents fear he “may carry a defect or injury into adulthood.”

Their suit is seeking $765,000 in damages to offset the costs of raising “an additional unplanned child,” as well as damages for breach of contract, unfair trade practices, consumer protection violations, and emotional distress.

“The defendant’s failure to properly supervise and administer the abortion service directly resulted in the failure of the pregnancy termination which resulted in injury to plaintiffs’ interests in family planning and their interests in financial planning for the future of their family,” the lawsuit claims.

Neither the family’s attorney nor Planned Parenthood would comment further to the Albuquerque Journal.

“You try and kill your baby and then you’re shocked that he didn’t come out perfectly healthy?” Chicks on the Right blogger Ashley wrote in response to the story, which she said “makes me sick. Prayers for that little boy. He’s the ONLY one who gets my sympathy here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists 2,207 adverse health events in women who used mifepristone between 2000 and 2011, including 14 deaths, 612 hospitalizations, 339 hemorrhages requiring transfusion, and 256 infections.

Editor’s note. This appeared at LifeSiteNews and is reposted with permission.

The post Couple sues Planned Parenthood for $765,000 after botched abortion: report appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog

Abortion Ads Defend the Indefensible

“She Deserves to Be a Choice”?

By John Stonestreet & G. Shane Morris

The abortion industry has a public-relations problem. Make no mistake: in this case, it’s not the medium, it’s the message.

It’s hard to tug on people’s heartstrings when your business is stopping hearts. In spite of this, abortion providers like Planned Parenthood have made a number of disastrous attempts to pull this off.

There was the commercial last year by “Avengers” director Joss Whedon that suggested if your local Planned Parenthood clinic closed down, women would die, lose their jobs, and not be able to go to college.

Before that, there was a series of city-sponsored ads in New York Subways featuring grouchy-looking babies with captions like, “Got a good job? I cost thousands of dollars each year.”

But I think the most tone-deaf and openly anti-baby pro-abortion ad ever made showed up on social media earlier late last year. The video, which was actually produced a couple of years ago by a left-wing political group called “The Agenda Project,” features a cooing baby girl serenaded by a Brahms lullaby, accompanied by the captions: “She deserves to be loved. She deserves to be wanted. She deserves to be a choice.”

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who immediately thought that this video must be satire. But it’s not. The Agenda Project is a real organization that has influenced national politics in the past with over-the-top ads. Remember that bizarre, disturbing commercial from 2011 that featured a Paul Ryan lookalike throwing a wheelchair-bound grandmother off a cliff?

Many have mistakenly concluded that the “she deserves to be a choice” ad was sponsored by Planned Parenthood, since it closes with “#StandwithPP.” To be clear, Planned Parenthood wasn’t involved in the production. Still, the video is in line with a long tradition of gruesome, outrageous, and downright self-destructive messaging by abortion-rights activists.

For example, comedian Sarah Silverman’s remark earlier this year that pro-life laws make her want to eat an aborted fetus. Mary Elizabeth Williams’ Salon article entitled “So what if abortion ends life?” and the “Shout Your Abortion” campaign, which aims to normalize abortion by encouraging women to proudly tell their stories.

This isn’t what we at BreakPoint call “nut-picking” (you know, seeking out only the craziest examples from the fringe of the pro-choice movement). As we’ve pointed out before, there’s been a marked and discernible shift in abortion rights rhetoric from treating abortion as something that ought to be “safe, legal, and rare,” to promoting and even celebrating it in the most in-your-face ways possible.

I’ve even wondered aloud if there’s a pro-life troll running Planned Parenthood’s Twitter feed, given their blindly ironic tweets.

What I think we’re seeing is an increasingly desperate and embattled pro-abortion movement. And it makes sense… Imaging technology is ever-improving; neonatal and prenatal medicine are breaking new frontiers almost daily. High-profile cases like Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” reveal what the abortion industry has become.

In light of all this, it’s increasingly difficult to buy the tired old pro-abortion lines that the unborn are “clumps of tissue,” and that abortion is “women’s healthcare.” In our age of 3-D ultrasounds, we know exactly what abortion is and whom it kills.

The kind of unwitting honesty revealed by the revolting messaging coming from modern abortion defenders these days needs to be shared, widely. They must now make their case to a public more aware than ever of the humanity of the unborn. When scare tactics and bad comedy don’t work, we see the deadly logic of abortion: a beautiful, giggling baby that, we are told without a trace of remorse, “deserves to be a choice.”

No, she deserves to live. But a movement that tries to make death look and sound like a loving choice, deserves to die.

Editor’s note. This appeared at Breakpoint and is reposted with permission.

The post Abortion Ads Defend the Indefensible appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Title X

Trump Administration Restores Title X Regulations to Separate Family Planning from Abortion

Change restores previous regulations prohibiting grantees from co-locating with abortion clinics or from referring clients for abortion

HHS Secretary Alex Azar

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today announced a final rule to restore Title X family planning regulations to prohibit grantees from co-locating with abortion clinics, or from referring clients for abortion.

In spite of pro-abortion distortions, the rule does not cut family planning funding. It merely ensures that health facilities receiving Title X funds do not perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

“We thank President Trump and Health & Human Services Secretary Azar for their numerous actions to restore pro-life policies,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “We are encouraged to see the announcement of Title X regulations that are back in line with previous policy that prevents federal dollars from being used to directly or indirectly promote abortion domestically.”

Under the new directive, which will take effect in 60 days, organizations receiving Title X funding have 120 days to financially separate their family planning and abortion operations and one year to physically separate their family planning and abortion operations.

Congress created Title X in 1970 as a preventative family planning program. Congress wrote language into the statute to ensure the program did not directly or indirectly promote abortion.

Unfortunately, after Roe v. Wade, this language gradually became a dead letter. Title X grantees were first permitted, then required, to routinely refer all pregnant women regarding abortion as a “pregnancy management option.” For all practical purposes, some Title X grantees treated abortion as “a method of family planning,” despite the statutory prohibition.

Pro-life President Donald Trump

During the Reagan Administration, regulations were issued, with National Right to Life’s strong support, to restore the original character of Title X by prohibiting referral for abortion except in life endangering circumstances. Additionally, abortion facilities could not generally share the same location with a Title X site.

In the 1991 Rust v. Sullivan decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found similar regulations permissible.

However, the Clinton Administration would later reverse these regulations.

In early May 2018, nearly 200 Members of Congress and numerous pro-life groups, including National Right to Life, urged the Trump administration to reinstate pro-life policy regarding Title X regulations, separating abortion services and referrals from the Title X Program.

The post Trump Administration Restores Title X Regulations to Separate Family Planning from Abortion appeared first on NRL News Today.

Abortion Blog Legislation

Indiana House overwhelmingly approves ban on dismemberment abortions

By Dave Andrusko

Indiana Speaker of the House Brian Bosma

By an overwhelming 71-25 margin, the Indiana House Thursday passed House Bill 1211 which would ban the dismemberment of living unborn children. The measure now moves to the state Senate.

Ten states have already passed dismemberment abortion bans, one of the highest priorities of NRLC’s state affiliates.

Already a very pro-life state, legislators spoke of the impact of recent abortion-on- demand throughout pregnancy legislation passed in New York and proposed in Virginia, the Indianapolis Star reported.

“It just places such a low value on life,” House Speaker Brian Bosma said. “So yes, I think it has reinvigorated those who considered themselves to be pro-life to take action,” Kaitlin Lange reported.

Dismemberment abortions are gruesome even by the ugly standards of the abortion industry. The abortionist dilates the woman’s cervix and then uses scissors, forceps or clamps to rip apart the unborn child.

Lange reported that Corrine Youngs, an attorney for Indiana Right to Life, showed an ultrasound of her twins at 11 weeks in the womb.

“Do we think it’s good public policy or not to perform this on a still-living human being?” Rep. Peggy Mayfield, the bill’s author, asked. “I think the public outcry, especially (after recent action in other statehouses), just dictates that we address some procedures for what they are and, in our role of a policymaking body, decide what is the direction that we want to go as a state.”

Added Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter “Thursday’s historic vote brings us one step closer to ending barbaric dismemberment abortions in Indiana.

“We look forward to the Senate taking equally decisive action in the weeks ahead.”

As NRL News Today reported, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to block the ultrasound provision in the “2016 Dignity for the Unborn Act.”

The Act, signed into law by then-Gov. Mike Pence, contained a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion must be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound of her unborn baby at least 18 hours prior to an abortion. The ultrasound provision was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood in July 2016 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt ruling, but remained in effect until Pratt’s injunction in April 2017.

The post Indiana House overwhelmingly approves ban on dismemberment abortions appeared first on NRL News Today.