While today we are hearing that Supreme Court oral arguments are being postponed due to Covid-19 precautions, it was only less than two weeks ago, on March 4, that we witnessed a media storm surrounding the oral arguments of the SCOTUS case, June Medical Services v. Russo, the Louisiana law related to health regulations at abortion centers. Many pro-life advocates are confused by the media messaging surrounding this case, and are struck particularly by the irony that the law is not specifically about abortion, but is rather about safety.

Long gone are the days of the pro-choice mantra “safe, legal and rare,” and the fact is, we must advocate for the health and safety of pregnant women who make an abortion decision, as well as accompany her through the process of emotional, spiritual, and physical healing afterwards. As pro-life advocates, we mourn the thousands of lives lost every day in clinics across the country, but will not stand by as abortionists profit off of unsafe, unclean, and unregulated procedures.

This law, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (Act 620), authored by House Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-LA), would require doctors operating out of abortion clinics in Louisiana to have hospital admitting privileges within a 30-mile radius of the facility—a standard protocol for any outpatient surgical facility.

This would mean that if something went wrong during an abortion procedure (besides the obvious, tragic loss of life of the unborn child) and the woman needed specialized attention in a hospital, she would be transferred there and treated immediately, either by the same doctor or another doctor that has been fully briefed on the details of the emergency. As noted by Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and the chairman of the board of the American Association of Prolife OB/GYNs (AAPLOG), even the notoriously pro-abortion ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) recommend a face-to-face patient handoff as best practice.

It is important to mention that Louisiana law states that all ambulatory surgical centers (anywhere you might receive an outpatient surgical procedure) are held to this standard of requiring admitting privileges—except, however, for abortion clinics. Many Louisiana lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are looking to close this loophole and raise the standard of care for women seeking abortions.

March for Life Education & Defense Fund is wholly against abortion at any stage and seeks to make it unthinkable at all costs. In our mission to build a culture of life, we can and must recognize that far too often a woman’s safety is jeopardized at the hands of profit-driven abortion facilities with poor standards of care. As documented in the Friend of the Court Briefing put forward by Americans United for Life, the three abortion clinics implicated in this case have over 35 health and safety violations accumulated over the last decade, with infractions including “failure to properly clean and disinfect instruments after use in patient procedures,” “failure to monitor each abortion patient’s level of consciousness, respiratory status, and cardiovascular statues during abortion procedures for patients receiving IV medications and inhalation gas agents,” and “failure to ensure qualification, training, and competency of staff administering IV medications and analgesic gases to patients,” among many others. Next time someone tells you that closing abortion clinics will result in back-alley conditions, remind them that these dangerous conditions already exist in abortion clinics across the country.

So, while asking for hospital admitting privileges may seem like the logical response to this situation, there are several secondary factors that have succeeded in splintering approval around what should be a commonly accepted law. Here are a few questions to address in order to better understand June Medical Services v. Russo:

1) What was Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and how does it relate to June Medical Services v. Russo?

2) What is the concept of ‘undue burden,’ and does it apply here?

3) Is it a conflict of interest for an abortion clinic to represent women in a court of law?

4) What do the Supreme Court Justices think?

What was Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and how does it relate to June Medical Services v. Russo?

In 2016, the Supreme Court took up a similar bill out of Texas, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which, like June Medical Services v. Russo, would have required Texas abortion clinics to gain admitting privileges at local hospitals. This bill was ultimately denied by SCOTUS; a ruling that many pro-abortion advocates are claiming should be applied correspondingly to June Medical Services v. Russo.

Despite the talking points that these two bills are identical, there are actually a few major differences that caused the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow June Medical to move forward in Louisiana. These include a) the laws of these two states as they apply to ambulatory surgical centers, and b) the idea that women in Texas would have been subject to ‘undue burden,’ as a result of this bill, and women in Louisiana would not.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt would have also required all ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) to adhere to certain structural standards for hallway width and accessibility for EMTs, a requirement that June Medical Services v. Russo does not include in its bill. This structural requirement alone was enough to close a majority of the clinics in Texas and was consequently left out of the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.

Regarding the restriction that does apply, hospital admitting privileges, it is important to note that in Louisiana all other ASCs (anywhere where outpatient surgeries are performed) are already held to this standard, regardless of the rate at which complications actually occur during the procedure. Louisiana Attorney General, Jeff Landry, states that “this rule recognizes the higher degree of risk to patients at facilities where a high volume of surgical procedures are performed. Act 620 closed a statutory loophole by requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other Louisiana Department of Health-licensed outpatient surgical facilities in the State. Texas’ law, in contrast, did not require ASC medical staff to have privileges.” So the law simply eliminates the regulatory exception that abortion clinics have been receiving for years; abortion clinics are no longer given a “pass” on health and safety but are treated as other outpatient facilities.

What is the concept of ‘undue burden’ and does it apply here?

As previously mentioned, the second major difference between Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt and June Medical Services v. Russo is the idea of a regulation placing ‘undue burden’ on women who wish to seek an abortion; in other words, making it too difficult for her to easily access an abortion facility. This video by the Federalist Society outlines how in the Texas case, about half of the abortion clinics in question would have closed upon passing the bill, and while that would undoubtedly be a pro-life victory in and of itself, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to ask a woman to potentially drive hundreds of miles to the nearest abortion clinic. With the broad geography of Texas, this was a major concern. But, can the judges claim the same undue burden in Louisiana?

There is not enough evidence to support the idea that any of the clinics in Louisiana would be forced to close because of this law. LA Attorney General again states “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Louisiana’s law would not force any abortion clinic closures, saying, ‘there is no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act,’ and reiterating later that ‘the only permissible finding, under this record, is that no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of the Act.’”

Even if they did close, it would be because they fail to reach proper medical standards and should remain closed until they can comply with the standard of care of all other ASCs in the state. Four out of the six doctors implicated in this case have already had admitting privileges at some point in their careers, and it is likely they would be able to gain them again. The Federalist Society cites this in their video claiming that “if these physicians had actually used good faith efforts to obtain those admitting privileges, at most we would have one doctor that ends up having to leave one of the clinics, and that that work could be divided in such a way between the remaining doctors that, at most, the women at that clinic would experience a 50-minute delay.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revealed this in their study of the case.

Is it a conflict of interest for an abortion clinic to represent women in a court of law?

It is clear from recent polling surrounding this bill that Americans overwhelmingly believe abortion clinics should be held to the same standard of care as all other ambulatory facilities. So, why is the abortion lobby telling us otherwise? Would any woman genuinely want a lower standard of care when receiving a potentially dangerous procedure? According to these polls the answer is no. Thus, for an abortion clinic to claim to have a woman’s ‘best interest’ in mind, while actively lobbying to lower her standard of care, is a glaring irony and clear conflict of interest. How can an abortion clinic with a history of harming women accurately claim to know what is best for her?

Justice Alito asked about this topic during the oral arguments (transcript here). He questioned, “I know you think that the admitting privileges requirement serves no safety purpose, but suppose that the regulation that was being challenged was one that a lot of people might think really did serve a safety purpose…Now, if they’re wrong about that, it implicates the interests of the women who may want to get an abortion, but you would say the clinic nevertheless can sue on behalf of those women?” He later added, “The constitutional right at issue is not a constitutional right of abortion clinics, is it? It’s the right of women.” In drawing this comparison, Alito questioned the abortion lobby’s motives in this case.

Speaking of the Supreme Court Justices, what do they think?

This is the first abortion-related case taken up by SCOTUS since the recently elected Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the bench. Both he and Justice Neil Gorsuch are new to the Supreme Court since the ruling on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and are seen as important allies to the pro-life argument, but the apparent conservative majority doesn’t mean much in terms of outcome predictability.

While Justice Alito asked several questions and seemed to lean towards a more conservative view of the bill, there were an equal number of questions from Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who were vocal in working towards the opposite conclusion. It was clear that the oral arguments were not going to draw a consensus, with Justice Stephen Breyer commenting “we’re not going to solve this at oral argument.” The Supreme Court will spend the next few months reviewing the documents and will likely come to a decision to be made public in late June 2020.

While we can hope and pray for the Supreme Court to uphold this law, we can also acknowledge that June Medical Services v. Russo will set more than just a judicial precedent. Many are watching this case closely with an eye towards the question: do abortion clinics have women’s best interests in mind? Pro-life Americans know the answer to that question. It is our mission to be pro-baby and pro-woman: to defend the care and safety of every woman, to listen to the stories of those who have been hurt by their abortions and abortion experiences, and to find common ground on issues that will help to foster a culture of life in our country.

 

The Aura of Victory: An Amazing March for Life

By: Marjorie Dannenfelser and Chuck Donovan

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life and emcee of its massive annual gathering on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., describes it perfectly. Speaking to a crowd of a quarter million or more, a good half of them men and women under the age of 20, Jeanne hailed the attendees as the largest pro-life event in the world.

Let those words sink in.  Mass demonstrations occur around the planet every year, some of them very impressive.  People gather to highlight climate change, protest tax hikes on fuel or other commodities, or to demand a change in government.

But all of these events pale before the March every January in Washington, D.C to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision that eviscerated the right to life of unborn children from conception to birth, and now – starkly and sadly – beyond.  Year in and year out – for 47 years in a row – this peaceful and awe-inspiring event – come snow, sleet, or an occasional early spring – has endured, a march for people seeking nothing for themselves but rather a cradle of protection for the most vulnerable among us.

For decades, the March for Life was helmed by the redoubtable Nellie Gray, whose leadership and character blunted the barbs of the pundit class and endured their fading attempts to overlook the millions she shepherded onto the National Mall over the decades.  She came to be known by her first name – just “Nellie” – a rare tribute in our national politics, befitting the role she played in a thoroughly American drama.

Now it may have become “Jeanne’s” hour.

You see, in 2020, there was fresh realization, dawning on a jaded country, that the tide of resistance to the brutal command of the abortion cases no longer flows in a radical direction.  That rarest of things in politics and policy anywhere, a seemingly impregnable fiat written from above by the highest court in the land is being resisted and reversed by the people.

Our history has taught us how difficult a thing this is to accomplish, no matter how grave the injustice.  In 1896 the United States Supreme Court, discarding the ideals inscribed in our Constitution at the price of a Civil War, upheld racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson.  Enormity that it was, this ruling lasted 58 years until it was overturned by that same court in Brown v. Board of Education.

Today Roe v. Wade has lasted nearly five decades as “the law of the land.” While it took a decision of the Supreme Court to end a manifest injustice, contrary to the nation’s deepest values, segregation was ultimately ended by the people themselves, embodied by Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, who marched, prayed, sang, and called on the nation to raise the banner of freedom – to recognize that every person is “an heir of liberty,” that “noble legacy” we receive by virtue of merely being human.

Thus, in 2020, we are sensing anew that the invention of an abortion right violates the deepest principle that every one of us is made in the image and likeness of God.  How often have marchers for Life heard the catcalls of opponents and some in the press, who argued that these annual displays on the Mall would not last?  That we would tire, suffer division, wither away, and collapse.

How wrong they are!  This is where Jeanne Mancini and her team have performed an American miracle.  They are too humble to say it, and knowing her, even to think it, but they have done something that almost never happens in the annals of our country.  They have witnessed without fail.  They have helped us reach the edge of the uplands we seek – a life-affirming, woman-affirming, family-affirming culture and polity.

This year’s March was once again warm and hopeful.  The spirit of the March converged with and conveyed our fondest dreams.  Yes, there is work to be done, laws to be passed, pregnancy centers to be opened, mantles of responsibility to be taken up, health care to be delivered to women and babies in need.  We are summoned once more to heed the “better angels of our nature.” Above it all, there is thanks to Almighty God, and praise for all who have labored, wept, and worked to see such a day.

Truly this was a March to remember – an ambience of love and service agleam with the aura of victory.

This article was originally published by the Susan B. Anthony List.

Marjorie Dannenfelser (@marjoriesba) is president of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List. Chuck Donovan (@cantdon) is president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research and education arm of Susan B. Anthony List.

There are moments in life when you know you are witnessing history unfold.  My first such recollection was 34 years ago today.  I recall vividly when my elementary school principal came over the intercom and told us the Space Shuttle Challenger had exploded just after takeoff.  A few years later, I watched Operation Desert Storm unfold from the T.V. in my living room.  And, of course, none of us will forget watching the twin towers fall on 9-11.

It’s more difficult to recall positive history-making moments of my lifetime, but as of last Friday, there is one such event I am certain never to forget: when President Donald J. Trump addressed the national March for Life rally in Washington, D.C.

On Jan. 24, 2020, President Trump became the first sitting U.S. president ever to deliver a speech at the March for Life.  And to my amazement, I stood beside him.  More specifically, I was one of 19 women asked to stand with the president as he delivered his historic speech to the 47^th annual March for Life.

This year’s march honored the 19^th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1920.  Many suffragist leaders were pro-life; they did not believe abortion to be beneficial to women.  These women included Susan B. Anthony and Alice Paul, who considered abortion the “ultimate exploitation of women.” It was humbling to remember these courageous female pioneers as I stood there — women who would no doubt smile and cheer at the sight of their sisters standing on that stage.

As I stood feet from the president, overlooking tens of thousands of pro-life men, women and children (estimates are 60,000 to 70,000 attended the rally, and a total of 350,000 joined the march itself), I was overwhelmed.  I couldn’t see the end of the crowd, nor could I imagine the end to what this would mean to pro-life Americans.  To say the president’s speech galvanized the pro-life community would be an understatement.  It electrified us, gave us a shot in the arm unlike any other pro-life address could.

President Trump encouraged us with statements including “Young people are the heart of the March for Life — and it is your generation that is making America a pro-family, pro-life nation,” and made powerful declarations like “Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.”  I personally appreciated his words to women and mothers: “Today, millions of extraordinary women across America are using the power of their votes to fight for the first right in the Declaration of Independence — the Right to Life,” and “To all of the moms here today: we celebrate you and we declare that mothers are heroes.”

Undergirding his strong rhetoric were many examples of his commitment to pro-life policies.  President Trump recounted his Executive Order to reinstate and expand the Mexico City Policy, his support of the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, his commitment to veto anti-life legislation, to protect faith-based adoption agencies and the rights of pro-life college students to speak freely.  One of the loudest applause lines came when he recalled his appointment of 187 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices.

The president did not simply “give a pro-life speech.”  He delivered one of — if not the — strongest pro-life speeches I’ve ever heard.  Moreover, his speech was God-honoring, including lines like “When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation,” and reminding us of Psalm 139, that “each person is wonderfully made.”  Perhaps strongest of all was his concluding remark: “Every human soul is divine, and every human life — born and unborn — is made in the holy image of Almighty God.”

On the slight chance that this article makes it to the president, I would like him to know how profoundly grateful I was, and will always be, to have stood with him as he boldly and unashamedly proclaimed the unalienable right to life and the inherent dignity and value of every human life.  It was an honor I will never forget, and a historic moment for which millions of Americans will forever be thankful.

 

About the Author

Amanda Banks serves as the Director of External Relations for the Family Policy Alliance. 

Every January since 1974, thousands upon thousands have made a pilgrimage to Washington D.C., sometimes in the frigid cold, to march against the abhorrent decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, to March for Life.

Our marching and our year-round advocacy for the unborn would not be possible without the generosity of many pro-life people from across the country. As we approach the 2020 March for Life on January 24^th, we’d like to recognize a March for Life benefactor whose life testifies to the power of embracing her personal mission in the battle for the right to life for the unborn and compassionate care for women, our friend Mary Ann St. Cloud.

Written below is a short biography of Mary Ann authored by her daughters Mary Pat and Antonia.

We hope her life inspires you to continue fighting for the unborn!

“Mary Ann St Cloud was a lifelong defender of the humanity, rights, and lives of the unborn. Even in her final years and illness her passion for the prolife cause never wavered.

When Mary Ann moved to the Sacramento area in the early 1970’s she and a small group of like-minded women began to meet to strategize ways to fight the pro-abortion laws and culture.  Various pro-life groups were in their founding stages at this time. These ladies formed a group called The Committee to Defend the Unborn. They would strategize on how they could be an effective voice. While these ladies were supporters of the early Sacramento Life Center and Sacramento Right to Life they were also their own pro-life voice. Knowing that their state was one of the first to legalize abortion six years before Roe v Wade, they became educated and knowledgeable of the legislative process; they wrote letters to legislators, stayed aware of pending legislation and were a presence at the state capital as bills came forward. They participated in demonstrations to be a presence to the general public. The committee periodically put out a newsletter. An edition always went out during an election season with information about the candidates so voters would be informed.  The group also corresponded with local spiritual leaders and pastors to keep the pro-life cause alive in the nearby religious communities. Through all these endeavors Mary Ann was involved from the very beginning and at the forefront.  As other pro-life organizations grew and expanded their influence and services, committee members became volunteers for these groups while carrying on their personal missions.

Mary Ann was always proud and forthright about her pro-life support. She was never defensive or apologetic for her views and activism. She instilled this passion in her two daughters who are actively pro-life; including one who has been active for over forty years in a myriad of pro-life activities and is now an officer and board member of the Sacramento Life Center. (The SLC founded in 1972, was the fourth of now 3,000 pregnancy medical clinics established across the country starting as a resource center working out of a member’s home.)

Mary Ann was a great admirer of Nellie Gray.  She was impressed with her eloquence, commitment and ability to bring about a national voice for the unborn. She was thrilled with the growth of the March for Life into the remarkable organization that it is today. She appreciated the importance of this national voice and assemblage recognizing the importance of all our communities coming together as one great voice for the defenseless unborn. The National March for Life has a proven record that inspired confidence in Mary Ann. It was no surprise to the family that Mary Ann chose the National March for Life to be a benefactor of her trust.

Mary Ann Taylor was born in Sacramento on July 2, 1932. Mary Ann graduated from St Francis High School and went on to Stanford University where she met Charles Martell. After she graduated, they were married in 1954. Mary Ann was widowed in 1969 and raised her two daughters alone until she remarried in 1979. She passed away on February 18, 2019.”

The pro-life movement continues to save lives because of thousands, like Mary Ann, who confidently say “yes” to their own unique, unrepeatable mission to uphold the inherent dignity of life. Thank you, Mary Ann St. Cloud, for your generosity to the pro-life movement and to the March for Life!

 

TEN TIPS FOR THE MARCH FOR LIFE

 

Be prepared for cold weather!

The streets of Washington, D.C. can be chilly in January. Check the weather forecast before you leave, but bring your warmest winter coat, no matter what! Wear layers – you can add or remove layers depending on the temperature and bring hand warmers, gloves, a hat, and waterproof boots.

Stay connected with your group members.
The crowds are very large at the March for Life, so try to stay physically connected to your group as much as possible. Make sure everyone has at least one leader’s cell phone number, and inform everyone of the time and meeting place after the March is finished. Give everyone a map of the March for Life route, which you can download HERE.

Know your transportation options.
If you’re with a large group with planned transport, make sure everyone is informed of the meeting and pick-up locations. If you’re traveling with a small group, we recommend using public transportation. Check out the March for Life website for more travel information and tips for DC public transportation.

Check out other events throughout the week
Turn your trip to Washington, D.C. into a pro-life pilgrimage by participating in a number of events around our nation’s capital.
The March for Life is hosting events from January 22-24, including:
March for Life Expo
March for Life Conference
March for Life Youth Rally
Find other related events on the March for Life website:
MarchForLife.org/related-events

Download the March for Life App
Stay up to date on March for Life events, connect with other marchers, and receive event updates by downloading the March for Life app!

Bring signs
Be creative and let the world know why we march! Check out some of our favorite signs for some inspiration! Even if you forget or can’t bring signs, many groups will have signs to hand out on the National Mall.

Share your experience
It’s important to show why we march!
During the event, post pictures and videos of your experience at the March for Life and tag them with #WhyWeMarch and #MarchForLife! We’ll be sharing our favorite posts at all our events, including the March for Life Conference, Youth Rally, Expo, and Rally and on WhyWeMarch.org!

Show your representative that you VOTE pro-life
Traveling to Washington, D.C. for the March for Life gives the pro-life movement a unique opportunity to directly let our nation’s leaders know America is proudly pro-life!
After the March for Life, consider visiting your representative’s office to be a voice for the unborn. Before visiting, be sure to read the official March for Life Action lobbying booklet, Capitol Hill 101.

Thank the amazing volunteers
The March for Life would not be possible if not for the dozens of volunteers who give their time, talents, and service to building a culture of life. We are especially grateful for the continued support and service of the Knights of Columbus. If you pass by one of our amazing volunteers, please give them a big thank you!

Stay connected with the March for Life year-round
Sign up for text message alerts so you can get important, late-breaking information by texting MARCH to 73075.
Follow the March for Life on social media.
Facebook: March for Life
Twitter: @March_for_Life
Instagram: @marchforlife 
Youtube: March for Life Education and Defense Fund
Follow March for Life Action to stay up to date on our pro-life efforts on Capitol Hill.
Facebook: March for Life Action 
Twitter: @MFLAction

 

Thank you for participating in the 2020 March for Life! We look forward to marching with you!