FRANKFORT, Ky. (March 11, 2019) – At least now we have clarity on the issue. Now that the hard left has dropped the pretense of “safe, legal and rare” or “a collection of cells is not a fetus,” we can better see beneath their masks. With the passage of a barbaric new law in New York, we now see that the true agenda of pro-abortion advocates across this nation is the mass murder of innocent babies, even after they have been born and are crying for their mothers. That’s a difficult line to read, much less to allow to sink in to one’s consciousness. Tragically…monstrously, it is an accurate reflection of the liberal position in New York and Virginia, and is sadly true for some liberals in Kentucky as well.
I am grateful that the vast majority of my fellow Kentuckians will not stand for this in our Commonwealth. We will not allow the most innocent among us to be treated in this horrific manner. That is why, led by our administration, we have passed some of the most effective pro-life measures in America today. I applaud the General Assembly for the overwhelming bipartisan support of these measures. On average, these bills passed with over 80 percent support of representatives and senators from both parties.
In Kentucky we have laws to:
- Ban abortions after 20 weeks (when babies can feel pain).
- Require an ultrasound before abortion so the mother at least has the option to see her baby.
- Protect babies from being dismembered in the womb.
My legal team has been working tirelessly to defend many of these laws in court. Defending Kentucky law should be the responsibility of the attorney general, who Kentucky voters elected for that purpose. But Andy Beshear not only has refused to defend these laws, and thus defend babies, he recently wrote a letter that can only be described as desperate…
KRLA Staff and Friends
STORY OF THE WEEK
2019 Legislative Session draws to a close
Please join the KRLA Team by signing up! After logging in you will be able to post a comment.
10 week old fetus
Learn about Kentucky’s Dismemberment Law.
If you were not able to hear and watch Gov. Bevin and his running mate, Sen. Ralph Alvarado, speak out for LIFE at the KRLA Rally for Life on 3/7/19, you will in the video.
Many of us were so disappointed that we could not enter the Capitol to be part of the Rally. When we arrived an EXTREMMMMELY long line of teachers, both at the Capitol and Annex entrances, meant that by the time we would get inside, the Rally would be long over. None of us realized this until we got there.
We thank EVERYONE who came from so many different areas of Kentucky. What a disappointment! Those who did get in could barely hear the speeches due to the commotion of the staggering crowd of teachers. It’s wonderful that we have this video!
“Fight for the sanctity of human life and know that as your governor and as your legislature we will continue to fight with you every step of the way!” - Gov. Bevin at the 2019 Rally for Life Thank you, Governor Bevin!
An Amicus Brief was posted on the Supreme Court docket website on Feb. 4 seeking clarification on the question:
Whether a state ban on dismemberment abortions is unconstitutional where there is a reasonable medical debate that alternatives to the banned procedure are safe
The Brief is presented through Governor Bevin as “Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners.” Bravo Governor Bevin!
The Brief ends by asking SCOTUS to reverse the lower court decision of the Eleventh Circuit that overruled Alabama’s passage of a Dismemberment Abortion law in 2016. The lower court ruled it an unconstitutional ban on the D&E procedure.
Other states including Kentucky have passed the same legislation, namely Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. Even more states are listed as petitioners in the Amicus Brief, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, N. Dakota, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, and Utah. There is strength in numbers!
The Brief contends:
The question presented in this case goes to the heart of the States’ authority to regulate abortion. This Court has held that States (1) have an interest in protecting and fostering respect for human life, including unborn life, and (2) have the power to regulate the medical profession, including on matters of medical judgment and ethics connected to abortion. See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). As a result, not only may States prohibit specific abortion procedures that threaten to erode respect for life, but they may balance any related medical tradeoffs when they do so, on condition that they do not unduly burden the decision to obtain an abortion. Id. Although the decision to obtain an abortion has been constitutionally protected, access to a particular abortion method — even a method favored by abortion providers — is not.
The request spotlights the legislation as pro-human dignity rather than pro-life. It does not prevent abortion. This is the unconscionable pass at which we find ourselves today. Regaining ground is the objective of this challenge to the court decision.
…In requiring fetal demise before dismemberment, amici do not intend to sanction either abortion generally or the dismemberment procedure in particular. They regret that Supreme Court precedent places them in the incongruous position of advocating for fetal death as a less brutal, more humane alternative to a procedure that should have no place in a civilized society. But at a minimum, amici strongly support the authority of States to protect both unborn life and human dignity in that small way. Amici thus have an interest in ensuring courts recognize that authority and scrutinize it under the appropriate standards.
SB 9, the Heartbeat Bill, has passed out of Committee to the floor of the House. Gov. Bevin is expected to sign it if it reaches his desk, at which point the ACLU of Kentucky will sue the state.
This same bill recently passed Tennessee’s House Committee. LifeNews.com reports:
Heartbeat bills also have been introduced in a number of other states this winter, including Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and South Carolina. However, in January, a judge declared Iowa’s heartbeat law unconstitutional.
The goal of the legislation is to prevent the deaths of thousands of unborn babies every year. However, even some pro-life advocates admit that the success of the legislation is uncertain. While the rationale behind the law is noble, a number of pro-life leaders recognize that, for the present, such laws may create unintended consequences that could hamper the pro-life cause. When courts rule against such laws, state taxpayers often are forced to reimburse pro-abortion groups for their legal fees.
North Dakota and Arkansas passed heartbeat bills several years ago, but federal courts struck down both laws.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said the following about its ruling on the six-week ban: “Because there is no genuine dispute that (North Dakota’s law) generally prohibits abortions before viability — as the Supreme Court has defined that concept — and because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.”
Is this a dilemma for pro-lifers? Can we continue to push for legislation that ends abortion, whether in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester? Ought we to base our legal strategies on whether or not a court will rule in our favor? Or, should we seek justice by pursuing the right to life for pre-born babies who are alive from conception? We are living in a time of unconstitutional high court decisions that dictate lower court rulings, BUT not always. Some judges respectfully stand for life.
One example is the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges to hospitals to protect women’s health. The case went to SCOTUS this winter despite a similar Texas law being struck down. “But Chief Justice John Roberts joined the high court’s pro-abortion minority to prohibit the law’s implementation over the dissent of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch noted their dissent but did not join the Kavanaugh opinion. Oddly, Roberts joined the pro-life side when the Supreme Court ruled on a similar Texas law.” (NRLC.org)
Nevertheless the case may be reconsidered later this year.
A man who lived 3,000 years ago defined our dilemma well: “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps 11:3) Your Kentucky Right to Life is working on answers and encouraging prayer.
Late Tuesday night the Kentucky House voted to pass HB5 that bans abortion based on race, color, national origin, gender or disability. No Republican voted Nay. The final tally was 100 to 39, with 25 democrats voting against it and eight House members absent. A Roll Call on the vote is here. The Bill has been received in the Senate.
TAGSStars & Stripes International Artists for Life Pro-life Events Euthanasia Conscience Rights Eugenics Legislation Here & There Planned Parenthood PEOPLE Video Louisville