In $11.3M federal fund maneuver, Planned Parenthood services expand
Tennessee and Oklahoma will receive a combined $11.3 million in federal Title X money in a workaround after the states were denied that money earlier this year. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that $3.9 million each in federal funds will go to both the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood and Converge Inc. in Mississippi to expand services into Tennessee. Meanwhile, the Missouri Family Health Council will receive $3.3 million to expand service into Oklahoma. HHS withheld $4.5 million in federal Title X funds from Oklahoma earlier this year and more than $7 million from Tennessee. Title X, according to the federal website, “is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.” Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said the maneuver was “wrong on many levels” and HHS should correct its actions. “The federal government withheld critical funding from TN families, so they could funnel taxpayer dollars to a radical political organization,” Lee said on social media. “Some things should simply rise above politics – especially resources that TN mothers, children & families have counted on for decades.” Earlier this year, HHS provided Tennessee with notice because it was not complying with federal regulations. It was recommended to not receive Title X funding. “Title X recipients must follow all federal regulatory requirements regarding nondirective options counseling and referrals, including providing referrals for abortion upon client request,” the letter from HHS’ Office of Population Affairs said. The Tennessee Faith and Freedom Coalition objected to the move to shift federal funding to Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi through a workaround that its CEO acknowledged in a statement to the media, saying the group partnered with the Virginia office to receive the funding. “It is also egregious to note that the Biden Administration ignores and enables the evil history and practices of Planned Parenthood by giving them more taxpayer dollars, as their founder Margaret Sanger demonstrated in her writings and speeches, as evidenced in their targeting of minority communities, and their sick practices involving the tissue of dead children,” the Faith and Freedom Coalition said in a statement. “Furthermore, it is ridiculous to give that organization taxpayer money, irregardless of one’s position on abortion. “Roe v. Wade is dead, and the world is better for it. Women deserve better than abortion.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Kentucky abortion law blocked in win for clinics
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked a state law that effectively eliminated abortions in Kentucky after the state’s two remaining clinics said they couldn’t meet its requirements. The decision by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings was a victory for abortion rights advocates and a setback for the Republican-led legislature, which passed the law in March and then overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of the measure last week. Both of the clinics indicated Thursday that they would immediately resume abortion services. The new law bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and requires women to be examined by a doctor before receiving abortion pills. It also contains new restrictions and reporting requirements that the Kentucky clinics said they couldn’t immediately comply with. Noncompliance can result in stiff fines, felony penalties and revocation of physician and facility licenses. Jennings’ order did not delve into the larger issue of the new law’s constitutionality. Instead, it focused on the clinics’ claims that they’re unable to immediately comply with the measure because the state hasn’t yet set up clear guidelines. The judge said her order does not prevent the state from crafting regulations. Jennings, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, said she decided to block the measure because she lacked information “to specifically determine which individual provisions and subsections are capable of compliance.” Abortion rights activists said they were relieved by the decision but noted more rounds are ahead in the legal fight. “This is a win, but it is only the first step,” said Rebecca Gibron, the CEO for Planned Parenthood in Kentucky, where its clinic is immediately resuming abortion services. “We’re prepared to fight for our patients’ right to basic health in court and to continue doing everything in our power in ensure abortion access is permanently secured in Kentucky.” Kentucky’s Republican attorney general, Daniel Cameron, signaled that he’ll be ready to defend the law as the case proceeds. “We are disappointed that the court chose to temporarily halt enforcement of the entire law,” he said in a statement. “This law is constitutional and we look forward to continuing to defend it.” Supporters say the goal of Kentucky’s new law is to protect women’s health and strengthen oversight. Opponents say the objective all along was to stop abortions in the state completely. Abortions had been suspended at the two Louisville clinics since the law took effect last week. During that time, women in Kentucky were forced to either travel out of state to end their pregnancies or wait for the judge’s decision. Many of the women affected were young and poor, advocates said. Attorneys for the two clinics — Planned Parenthood and EMW Women’s Surgical Center — filed separate lawsuits challenging the law and seeking an order halting its enforcement. Jennings issued the order in the Planned Parenthood suit. “Abortion remains legal and is once again available in Kentucky,” said Heather Gatnarek, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which filed the suit on behalf of EMW. “We will always fight to keep it that way here and across the country.” Kentucky is among several GOP-led states that have passed restrictive abortion laws in anticipation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established a right to abortion nationwide nearly 50 years ago. Pending before the high court is a challenge to a law passed in a fifth state, Mississippi, that bans abortion after 15 weeks. The court has indicated that it will allow Mississippi’s ban to stand and conservative justices have suggested they support overruling Roe. The Mississippi case loomed even as abortion rights supporters cheered their victory Thursday in Kentucky. “Unfortunately, the ability to receive an abortion will continue to hang by a thread throughout the United States,” Gatnarek said. “In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether to weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade.” No matter how the current conservative-dominated Supreme Court handles pending high-profile abortion cases — perhaps weakening Roe, perhaps gutting it completely — there will be no monolithic, nationwide change. Fractious state-by-state battles over abortion access will continue. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Texas abortion ban stays in force as justices mull outcome
More than two weeks have passed since the Supreme Court’s extraordinarily rushed arguments over Texas’ unique abortion law without any word from the justices. They raised expectations of quick action by putting the case on a rarely used fast track. And yet, to date, the court’s silence means that women cannot get an abortion in Texas, the second-largest state, after about six weeks of pregnancy. That’s before some women know they’re pregnant and long before high court rulings dating to 1973 that allow states to ban abortion. There has been no signal on when the court might act and no formal timetable for reaching a decision. The law has been in effect since Sept. 1, and the court has been unable to muster five votes to stop it, said Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at Florida State University’s law school. “While there is some sense of urgency, some justices had more of a sense of urgency than others,” Ziegler said. Meanwhile, the justices are two weeks away from hearing arguments in another abortion case with potentially huge implications for abortion rights in the United States. The court will take up Mississippi’s call to overrule the two major Supreme Court rulings that, starting in 1973, have guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion. The state law at issue bans abortions after 15 weeks, well before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Viability, typically around 24 weeks, has been the dividing line: Before it, states can regulate but not ban abortion. Even before the justices decide what to do about Mississippi’s law and the fate of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Texas’ law has effectively changed the standard, at least for the time being. It bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the fetus, usually around six weeks, and deputizes ordinary citizens to enforce the law in place of state officials who normally would do so. The law authorizes lawsuits against clinics, doctors, and anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion that is not permitted by law. It was designed to make federal court challenges difficult, if not impossible. Federal courts have had no trouble preventing other bans on abortion early in pregnancy from taking effect when they have relied on traditional enforcement. The Texas law is doing what its authors intended. In its first month of operation, a study published by researchers at the University of Texas found that the number of abortions statewide fell by 50% compared with September 2020. The study was based on data from 19 of the state’s 24 abortion clinics, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. Texas residents who left the state seeking an abortion also have had to travel well beyond neighboring states, where clinics cannot keep up with the increase in patients from Texas, according to a separate study by the Guttmacher Institute. The Supreme Court is weighing complex issues in two challenges brought by abortion providers in Texas and the Biden administration. Those issues include who, if anyone, can sue over the law in federal court, the typical route for challenges to abortion restrictions, and whom to target with a court order that ostensibly tries to block the law. Under Supreme Court precedents, it’s not clear whether a federal court can restrain the actions of state court judges who would hear suits filed against abortion providers, court clerks who would be charged with accepting the filings, or anyone who might someday want to sue. People who sue typically have to target others who already have caused them harm, not those who might one day do so and not court officials who are just doing their jobs by docketing and adjudicating the cases. The justices’ history with the Texas law goes back to early September when, by a 5-4 vote, they declined to stop it from taking effect. At the time, five conservative justices, including the three appointees of President Donald Trump, voted to let the law take effect. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberals in dissent. The abortion providers had brought the issue to the court on an emergency basis. After they were rebuffed, the Justice Department stepped in with a suit of its own. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted the Justice Department’s request for an order that put the law on hold. Pitman wrote in a 113-page ruling that the law denied women in Texas their constitutional right to an abortion, and he rejected the state’s arguments that federal courts shouldn’t intervene. But just two days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overrode Pitman and allowed the law to go back into effect. The Justice Department made its own emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Rather than rule on that appeal, the court decided to hear the two suits just ten days later and without the benefit of an appellate court decision. At the arguments, two Trump appointees appeared to have doubts about the Texas law. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the law allowed people who are sued to air their constitutional claims in court and whether it would lead to a spate of copycat laws on abortion and other rights protected by the Constitution. The court seemed particularly concerned about the “chilling effect” similar laws would produce on other constitutional rights, including speech, religion, and gun possession, said Sarah Marshall Perry, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The court’s intervention has few counterparts in recent history, and those include Bush v. Gore, the fight over the publication of the government’s secret history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, and Richard Nixon’s effort to keep from handing over the Watergate tapes that ultimately doomed his presidency. The justices have never said why they opted to hear the Texas cases so quickly or how soon they might be decided. The time since the arguments is less than a blink of an eye in high-court terms, where months typically elapse between arguments and a decision. But the justices themselves created the expectation
Judge orders Texas to suspend new law banning most abortions
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Texas to suspend the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S., which since September has banned most abortions in the nation’s second-most populous state. The order by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman is the first legal blow to the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8, which until now had withstood a wave of early challenges. In the weeks since the restrictions took effect, Texas abortion providers say the impact has been “exactly what we feared.” In a 113-page opinion, Pitman took Texas to task over the law, saying Republicans lawmakers had “contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme” to deny patients their constitutional right to an abortion. “From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” Pitman wrote. “That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.” But even with the law on hold, abortion services in Texas may not instantly resume because doctors still fear that they could be sued without a more permanent legal decision. Texas officials are likely to seek a swift reversal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously allowed the restrictions to take effect. The law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortions once cardiac activity is detected, which is usually around six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. To enforce the law, Texas deputized private citizens to file lawsuits against violators and has entitled them to at least $10,000 in damages if successful. The lawsuit was brought by the Biden administration, which has said the restrictions were enacted in defiance of the U.S. Constitution. The Biden administration argued that Texas has waged an attack on a woman’s constitutional right to abortion under the GOP-engineered restrictions, which took effect Sept. 1. “A state may not ban abortions at six weeks. Texas knew this, but it wanted a six-week ban anyway, so the state resorted to an unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice that was designed to scare abortion providers and others who might help women exercise their constitutional rights,” Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told the federal court Friday. Abortion providers say their fears have become reality in the short time the law has been in effect. Planned Parenthood says the number of patients from Texas at its clinics in the state decreased by nearly 80% in the two weeks after the law took effect. Some providers have said that Texas clinics are now in danger of closing while neighboring states struggle to keep up with a surge of patients who must drive hundreds of miles. Other women, they say, are being forced to carry pregnancies to term. Other states, mostly in the South, have passed similar laws that ban abortion within the early weeks of pregnancy, all of which judges have blocked. But Texas’ version has so far outmaneuvered the courts because it leaves enforcement to private citizens to file suits, not prosecutors, which critics say amounts to a bounty. “This is not some kind of vigilante scheme,” said Will Thompson, defending the law for the Texas Attorney General’s Office. “This is a scheme that uses the normal, lawful process of justice in Texas.” The Texas law is just one that has set up the biggest test of abortion rights in the U.S. in decades, and it is part of a broader push by Republicans nationwide to impose new restrictions on abortion. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court began a new term, which in December will include arguments in Mississippi’s bid to overturn 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to an abortion. Last month, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Texas law in allowing it to remain in place. But abortion providers took that 5-4 vote as an ominous sign about where the court might be heading on abortion after its conservative majority was fortified with three appointees of former President Donald Trump. Ahead of the new Supreme Court term, Planned Parenthood on Friday released a report saying that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, 26 states are primed to ban abortion. This year alone, nearly 600 abortion restrictions have been introduced in statehouses nationwide, with more than 90 becoming law, according to Planned Parenthood. Texas officials argued in court filings that even if the law were put on hold temporarily, providers could still face the threat of litigation over violations that might occur in the time between a permanent ruling. At least one Texas abortion provider has admitted to violating the law and been sued — but not by abortion opponents. Former attorneys in Illinois and Arkansas say they sued a San Antonio doctor in hopes of getting a judge who would invalidate the law. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Joe Biden lifts abortion referral ban on family planning clinics
The Biden administration on Monday reversed a ban on abortion referrals by family planning clinics, lifting a Trump-era restriction as political and legal battles over abortion grow sharper from Texas to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Department of Health and Human Services said its new regulation will restore the federal family planning program to the way it ran under the Obama administration when clinics were able to refer women seeking abortions to a provider. The goal is to “strengthen and restore” services, said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. Groups representing the clinics said they hope the Biden administration action will lead some 1,300 local facilities that left in protest over Donald Trump’s policies to return, helping to stabilize a longstanding program shaken by the coronavirus pandemic on top of ideological battles. “I have heard that almost everywhere in the country people have made the decision that conditions will be good for them to return to the program,” Clare Coleman, president of the umbrella group National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, said in an interview. “My sense is that people have been waiting for the rule.” Planned Parenthood, the biggest service provider, said on Twitter its health centers look forward to returning. But the group criticized part of the Biden administration rule that allows individual clinicians who object to abortion not to provide referrals. The administration said that’s “in accordance with applicable federal law.” Known as Title X, the taxpayer-funded program makes available more than $250 million a year to clinics to provide birth control and basic health care services mainly to low-income women, many of them from minority communities. Under former President Donald Trump, clinics were barred from referring patients for abortions, prompting a mass exit by service providers affiliated with Planned Parenthood, as well as several states and other independent organizations. Women’s groups labeled the Trump policy a “gag rule,” and medical organizations called it a violation of the clinician-patient relationship. But religious and social conservatives praised the policy for imposing a strict separation between family planning services and abortion. Under federal law, clinics cannot use federal family planning money to pay for abortions. However, abortion opponents argue that birth control funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions, amounts to an indirect subsidy. On Monday, the National Right to Life Committee criticized the Biden administration for “supplementing the abortion industry through taxpayer funds.” Title X family planning clinics served about 3.9 million clients in 2018, but HHS estimates that number fell by nearly 40% after the Trump policy. The upheaval may have led to more than 180,000 unintended pregnancies, the agency said. In all, more than one-quarter of the clinics left the program. Although several states stepped up with their own no-strings-attached funding, women in some parts of the country still lost access. Combined with service disruptions due to COVID-19 shutdowns, “this has just been a massive one-two punch to the system,” said Coleman. Joe Biden campaigned on a promise to overturn the restrictions on family planning clinics, but abortion was not a central issue in the 2020 presidential race. It may become one in the 2022 midterm elections to determine who controls Congress. Restrictive state laws in Texas, Mississippi, and elsewhere have prompted a mobilization by abortion rights supporters, who fear a conservative-leaning Supreme Court will overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally. Hundreds of abortion-themed protests were held around the country Saturday, including one that brought thousands of abortion rights supporters to the court’s steps. The Supreme Court has allowed the Texas law to take effect but has not ruled on the substantive legal questions behind that statute, which bans most abortions in the state. The justices will hear arguments on December 1 on the Mississippi law, which bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The court now tilts decidedly to the right after Trump appointed three conservative justices. Twelve states have passed laws that would ban abortion entirely if Roe is overturned. “Given the attacks on abortion in Texas and across the country, it’s more important than ever that patients can access their choice of birth control and other health care through Title X,” Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement. The new abortion referral policy for family planning clinics will take effect on November 8.
New Planned Parenthood Clinic in Birmingham to offer abortions
The new Planned Parenthood clinic in Birmingham will start offering abortions at their new location, 1019 First Ave. North. The clinic opened on July 14. According to AL.com, Barbara Ann Luttrell, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood Southeast, said, “It’s 11,000 square feet, a state-of-the-art facility,” she said. “We will offer a full spectrum of reproductive health services.” Abortions had not been offered at the old Planned Parenthood location since 2017. The office was located in Birmingham off Highland Ave was frequently a staging area for anti-abortion protests. Pro-life groups picket abortion clinics with volunteer “sidewalk counselors,” who try to dissuade women from having an abortion. The new clinic has a fenced-in parking area with a gate and security cameras. Construction began in January 2019. Soon after, the Alabama Legislature passed the Human Life Protection Act to make abortion illegal in Alabama except when the mother’s life is in danger. Gov. Kay Ivey signed the nearly complete ban on abortion into law in May 2019. “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said in a statement. Soon after the ban, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood sued to stop the law. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson blocked the ban with a preliminary injunction in October 2019, staying it was unconstitutional. Currently, there are three abortion clinics in Alabama. They are in Huntsville, Montgomery, and Tuscaloosa. The Birmingham office will be the fourth. Planned Parenthood provides a full array of reproductive services, including birth control, STD testing, and reproductive education. According to their website, “The majority of Planned Parenthood’s services are preventive: care that helps prevent unintended pregnancies with birth control and sex education, reduce the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”
Bradley Byrne: Walking the walk in the fight for life
Congressman Byrne discusses last week’s March for Life and the impact of Donald Trump’s unprecedented attendance at the rally.
Federal judge blocks Alabama’s strict abortion ban
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Alabama’s near-total abortion ban from taking effect next month and called the law — part of a wave of new abortion restrictions by conservative states — clearly unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking Alabama from enforcing the law that would make performing an abortion a felony in almost all cases. The ruling came after abortion providers sued to block the law from taking effect Nov. 15. The injunction was widely expected and will remain in place until Thompson decides the full case. “Alabama’s abortion ban contravenes clear Supreme Court precedent,” Thompson wrote in an accompanying opinion. “It violates the right of an individual to privacy, to make choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. It diminishes the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions. It defies the United States Constitution.” Energized by new conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama and other conservative states have attempted to enact new restrictions on abortion in the hopes of getting Supreme Court justices to reconsider Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. A number of states attempted to ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The Alabama law went further by attempting to ban almost all abortions with no exceptions for cases of rape and incest. Passed by the Republican-led legislature, the 2019 Alabama Human Life Protection Act would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison for the abortion provider. The only exceptions would be when there is a serious health risk to the mother or the fetus has a lethal anomaly that would cause it to die shortly after birth. None of the state bans has taken effect. Some have already been blocked, and elsewhere courts are considering requests to put them on hold while legal challenges play out. “This is not only a victory for the people of Alabama — it’s a victory for the entire nation. We said it from the start: This ban is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight it every step of the way,” said Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast. Planned Parenthood was one of the groups that sued to block the law. Randall Marshall, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said the decision was expected. “Abortion remains legal in Alabama. The state’s repeated attempts to push abortion out of reach by enacting unconstitutional laws restricting abortions has already cost taxpayers nearly 2 ½ million dollars,” Marshall said. “This ill-advised law will cost taxpayers more money.” Supporters of the Alabama law have also said they anticipated the action but hope to eventually convince the U.S. Supreme Court to roll back abortion rights. Alabama Republican Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the ban, said the ruling “is merely the first of many steps on that legal journey.” “As we have stated before, the state’s objective is to advance our case to the U.S. Supreme Court where we intend to submit evidence that supports our argument that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Constitution does not prohibit states from protecting unborn children from abortion,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in statement. In a measured statement, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said the ban reflects Alabamians beliefs, but that she also supports the “rule of law.” “This legislation passed with overwhelming support in the Alabama Legislature and was signed into law as a testament to Alabamians’ longstanding belief that every human life is sacred. We must continue doing all we can to protect life,” Ivey said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Alabama lawmaker, pastors call city sanctuary for ‘preborn’
An Alabama state lawmaker and dozens of pastors are calling for the city of Birmingham to be declared “a sanctuary for preborn children.” Al.com reports Republican Rep. Arnold Mooney and five pastors presented the Birmingham Proclamation to the State House on Wednesday. They’re opposed to plans for a new Planned Parenthood clinic. Terry Gensemer of the Charismatic Episcopal Church for Life said the group is providing the proclamation to the governor, attorney general, and Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth, who supported the passage of Alabama’s strictest abortion ban. The vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood Southeast, Barbara Ann Luttrell, says the Birmingham clinic is expected to be finished before year’s end. Information from: The Birmingham News, http://www.al.com/birminghamnews Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Hugh Culverhouse donates $250,000 to planned parenthood clinic
Planned Parenthood has received a $250,000 donation for its new Birmingham clinic from a critic of Alabama’s attempt to ban abortion. Planned Parenthood Southeast said Thursday that Hugh Culverhouse donated the large sum to support the relocation of its Birmingham location. Planned Parenthood is building a 10,000-square foot (929-square-meter) health clinic. Culverhouse said he has long supported Planned Parenthood and opposes a new Alabama law that seeks to ban abortion. Culverhouse recently ended a feud with the University of Alabama. Culverhouse had once called for a boycott over the abortion ban, but the university indicated their relationship had soured for other reasons. In a joint statement, the university and Culverhouse has said they had different views on the law school’s future. The university returned a $21.5 million donation from Culverhouse. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Planned parenthood president forced out after only 8 months
The president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Leana Wen, was ousted Tuesday after just eight months on the job as the organization faced unprecedented challenges related to its role as the leading abortion provider in the U.S. Wen, in a Twitter post, said she learned that Planned Parenthood’s board “ended my employment at a secret meeting.” She indicated the board wanted more emphasis on political advocacy, while she sought to prioritize Planned Parenthood’s role as a provider of health care services ranging from birth control to cancer screenings. “We were engaged in good faith negotiations about my departure based on philosophical differences over the direction and future of Planned Parenthood,” Wen said. “I am stepping down sooner than I had hoped.” Her departure came as the Trump administration announced it would start enforcing new rules that ban taxpayer-funded family planning clinics referring women for abortions. Planned Parenthood, the largest recipient of those funds, says it will not abide by those rules. Without elaboration, Planned Parenthood announced Wen’s departure via a Twitter post, thanking her for her service and wishing her luck going forward. It also announced that Alexis McGill Johnson, co-director of a research consortium called the Perception Institute, will serve as acting president of Planned Parenthood and its political wing, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, while a search for new permanent leader is conducted. Wen, a Chinese immigrant who fled her native country when she was a child, took over as Planned Parenthood’s leader in November, succeeding Cecile Richards, who had been president since 2006. Wen had been Baltimore’s health commissioner since 2015. Wen’s tenure coincided with major challenges for the U.S. abortion-rights movement, in which Planned Parenthood has long played a major role. Emboldened by a strengthened conservative presence on the U.S. Supreme Court, several Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted laws this year aimed at banning most abortions. None of the laws have taken effect, but backers hope they might eventually lead the high court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that establish a nationwide right to abortion. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has moved to withhold federal family planning funds from clinics, including Planned Parenthood’s, that refer women for abortions. With about 400 clinics, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider in the federal family planning program for low-income women, known as Title X. The program does not pay for abortions, but until now clinics had been able to refer women for the procedure. Planned Parenthood clinics have long been a target for religious and social conservatives because the clinics separately provide abortions. Jacqueline Ayers, Planned Parenthood’s top lobbyist, said its clinics will stop accepting federal money and tap emergency funding as they press Congress and the courts to reverse the administration’s ban. Title X serves about 4 million women annually through independent clinics. Taxpayers provide about $260 million a year in grants to clinics, but that money by law cannot be used to pay for abortions. In a letter to her colleagues at Planned Parenthood, Wen said she had believed its primary mission was to be a health care organization, more so than an advocacy organization. “With the landscape changing dramatically in the last several months and the right to safe, legal abortion care under attack like never before, I understand the shift in the Board’s prioritization,” Wen wrote. By David Crary AP National Writer. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
John Giles: Amendment Two — Choice vs. Life
November 6, 2018 is the mid-term election, and in addition to a slate of candidates, Alabamians will be voting on four amendments to the Alabama Constitution. Allow me to focus on Amendment Two. If passed, the Alabama Constitution will recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life. Generally, there are three visible sides to this debate: those who want unlimited abortion, those who want to protect the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death (except for the life of the mother), and those who are opposed to abortion (except in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother). In full disclosure, it is no surprise that I will be voting YES without blinking for Amendment Two. Please don’t hang up the phone on me just yet; let’s get into the facts on this, so you can make a sound, rational decision. Planned Parenthood (PP) is leading the effort to vote NO on this amendment. Why are they so adamant about keeping abortion legal in America; could it be large sums of money and their core philosophy? Even in the disturbing wake of mounting video-recorded evidence of PP selling baby body parts, they are still receiving in excess of $500 million annually of federal tax dollars. In addition to the federal funding, PP charges anywhere from $350 – $950 for first trimester abortions and much more for second trimester abortions. PP is federally recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, which excludes them from income tax. I am not sure how they do this, but even though nonprofits are precluded by the IRS from engaging in elections, PP is publicly reported to be spending $20 – $30 million supporting Democrats for Congress in this general election cycle. I ran a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and while we could participate in voter education and lobbying, we could not engage in “express advocacy” or endorsing any candidate. Amazingly, the IRS attacked conservative Tea Party members, but they look the other way on PP, which is pouring huge sums of money into Alabama to defeat this amendment. PP was founded by Margaret Sanger (1883 -1996), who was a turn of the century birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. I challenge you to look her up yourself, because she had some very radical, liberal ideas. Most of her philosophical quotes are morally repugnant, even by the norms of her era, but they are imbedded into the molecular makeup of PP. Sanger formed PP to exterminate blacks. In 1939, she started: “The Negro Project” for the purpose of radically curbing the birth of black children. If this offends you, like it bristles me, check out this Sanger quote: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Sanger had an abhorrent, horrific, belief system and appalling tone; but at least she was honest in the goals of PP, which are prevalent today. Three high profile Republican women, along with the Alabama Exchange (ad hoc group consisting of several pro-life organizations) are leading the vote YES effort in the state. Terry Lathan (Chair of the Alabama Republican Party), Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh (President of the Alabama Public Service Commission) and Mary Sue McClurkin (Shelby County Republican Representative) are leading the GOP get out the vote effort. Thank you ladies, for your leadership. This will be primarily a grassroots and social media driven outreach, and it will not match the well-funded PP opposition to Amendment Two. PP will showcase in their ads that voting YES to the amendment will eliminate access to women, who are pregnant due to rape or incest. One of the three categories mentioned at the beginning of this article are those opposed to abortion except in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother. Pay close attention to this statistic: The Guttmacher Institute, which is a research division founded by PP, by its own data, states that rape, incest and the life of the mother represents less than 1 percent of all abortions. So another perspective is the reciprocal, which means that over 99 percent of all abortions are emergency measures for birth control, and they are not cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother as marketed by PP. Liberal Democrats, PP, and the media will focus their entire attention on less than 1% of all abortions. The life of the mother discussion is a non-issue. When the life of the expecting mother is at stake, like a tubal pregnancy and the like, the tending physician will always put the life of the mother over her unborn child. Their argument is distorted at best, but now we take a close look at the deception around Roe v Wade. If you follow my writings, there is no misunderstanding about my feelings of judicial activism and making law from the bench. Roe v. Wade was a classic model case as the pinnacle of judicial activism. Norma McCorvey (9/22/1947 – 2/18/2017), whom Deborah (my wife) and I knew, was the legal pseudo “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. Before becoming a Christian, McCorvey became a lesbian and ran an abortion clinic; her life was a wreck. McCorvey later in life repented, became an active pro-life Christian and our friend Reverend Flip Benham baptized her. Self-proclaimed feminist liberal lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were seeking out the perfect case to make abortion legal in America. McCorvey, a single, divorced, alcoholic woman became pregnant with her third child in 1969, wanted to abort her child, but in Texas abortion was illegal, except for the life of the mother. Imagine that; except for California and New York, prior to 1973, abortion was illegal in America, except in the case of the life of the mother (like a tubal pregnancy). It was handled as a Tenth Amendment, states rights issue. McCorvey was not a pretty, eye-candy kind of girl, but rather a downtrodden alcoholic, so the lawyers kept her
