Right to Life of Louisville, the driving force behind many KRLA events, has NEWS!

KRLA Forum

By

You may need to refresh this page for the latest view.

4D Ultrasound

yawning infant

Please join the KRLA Team by signing up! After logging in you will be able to post a comment.

PHOTO CREDITS: 4D Ultrasound of fetal yawning at 30 weeks of pregnancy by Dr. Wolfgang Moroder. Baby yawning by Jeuwre. Human fetus at 10 weeks.

10 week old fetus

fetus at 10 weeks

Learn about Kentucky’s Dismemberment Law.

KRLA Forum

new_laws_b.jpg

Second in a Series: Pro-life Laws Under Attack

The initial document filed March 14, 2019, by EMW’s attorneys states its case as a constitutional challenge to HB5, the Anti-eugenics Law. Then on March 15 the complaint was amended to include SB9, the Heartbeat Law, even before these had been signed into law by Gov. Bevin.

Both laws were viewed as unconstitutional by the Plaintiffs. The U.S. Constitution provides for a right to privacy in Amendment 14, and that is how Roe v. Wade was framed to permit abortion.

What does it mean to be a strict constitutionalist? On the surface, it sounds good, but the assault on the common values of the America that was once a Christian nation, has twisted our constitution so that now a judge can view the right to abortion as sacrosanct if it is performed prior to viability. And today the term Christian commonly includes pro-abortion church leaders and members.

The Heartbeat Law makes perfect sense to the pro-lifer who views the pre-born baby as a person with standing before the law. After all, in Kentucky we have laws to prosecute anyone who wantonly causes the death of an unborn child in a criminal manner. We recognize the fetus as a person.

But on the other hand, we uphold Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, and call abortion a woman’s right. We say it is constitutional based on the 14th amendment,
A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.

So it is that the Plaintiffs have argued that both HB5 and SB9 are unconstitutional.

They won a Temporary Restraining Order in part based on this reasoning and could win the case at the District level as well.

We think our attorneys’ reasoning is much better. We will look at that in the next post.

VIABILITY OR PAIN?

This week the Plaintiffs filed a new document referencing the Alabama law to ban abortion (nearly totally) that a federal district court has blocked, stating:
Alabama’s abortion ban contravenes clear Supreme Court precedent. It violates the right of an individual to privacy, to make "choices central to personal dignity and autonomy." Casey, 505 U.S. at 851 (opinion of the Court). It diminishes "the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions." Id. at 860. It defies the United States Constitution.

The concept of viability, as already noted, is currently defined as "the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception." This definition has been disallowed by the Pain-capable rule that restricts abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy when an unborn child can feel pain. Kentucky passed the Pain-capable Law in 2017.

As well, viability no longer is limited to 24 weeks; LifeNews reports on a baby born at 21 weeks, the youngest ever to survive, who is doing vey well now. The article states:
Research published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 23 percent of premature infants survive as early as 22 weeks of pregnancy, but some hospitals have policies against treating babies at this early age.

Many, if not most, pro-lifers and pro-life medical authorities believe that a fetus much younger than 20 weeks can feel pain. The legendary Silent Scream video of an ultrasound that shows an abortion of a 12-week fetus reveals the pre-born baby thrashing to avoid the abortionist’s instrument and a wide open mouth when she is struck.

The seamless process of fetal development is so wonderful and amazing. To think of its interruption for callous reasons or from ignorance is heart-breaking.

The construct of viability presumes the mother and child are at cross purposes. The infant must be able to fend for herself or himself to be worthy of protection against abortion. Yet, the "viable" child is hardly independent and neither is the mother. Both need lots of help.

"No man is an island … " (John Donne, 1572-1631) We are interdependent. The Supreme Court needs new perspectives.

This blog series will pick up after the November 5 General Election.


KRLA Forum
First in a Series: Pro-life Laws Under Attack

Whatever became of the Heartbeat (SB9) and Anti-eugenics (HB5) bills that became law last March? Will discovery be allowed for the state of Kentucky to defend these laws?

You may be asking, what is discovery in a legal context? Here is Dictionary.Law.com’s definition:
n. The entire efforts of a party to a lawsuit and his/her/its attorneys to obtain information before trial through demands for production of documents, depositions of parties and potential witnesses, written interrogatories (questions and answers written under oath), written requests for admissions of fact, examination of the scene and the petitions and motions employed to enforce discovery rights. The theory of broad rights of discovery is that all parties will go to trial with as much knowledge as possible and that neither party should be able to keep secrets from the other (except for constitutional protection against self-incrimination). Often much of the fight between the two sides in a suit takes place during the discovery period.

Why has discovery not been permitted so far? Here begins a brief blog series to examine the EMW Clinic legal case against these laws.

We will look at documents filed by our attorneys and EMW’s on the PACER website. PACER is the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website that lets anyone create a login and search for case information.

If discovery is permitted by the judge, it is sure to be enlightening, but we may be on the brink of an opposing conclusion. Nevertheless, assuming Gov. Bevin is re-elected, the case probably will be pursued to the Appeals Court.

MANY ATTORNEYS

Four law entities are pursuing the case to quash HB5 and SB9 on behalf of the EMW clinic:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, NY, NY
  • Ackerson & Yann, PLLC , Louisville, KY
  • ACLU of Kentucky Foundation, Louisville, KY
  • O’Melveny & Myers, NY, NY

Kentucky is defending this case with attorney services from the Office of the Governor and the Cabinet for Health and Human Services since our Attorney General refused to defend them.

The opposition has termed HB5 the Reason Ban and SB9 the 6-week Ban. They have lumped these together in their suit that initially sought both a temporary restraining order and/or a temporary injunction as well as a permanent injunction, and now requests a summary judgment— asking the judge to reject these laws as unconstitutional, to dismiss the suit, and to permanently enjoin the defendants (our state) from "enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with SB9 and HB5…". (Enjoin in a legal context means to order.) That means never again could these issues be revisited in any legislation our senators or representatives propose.

The Judge in charge of this case is David J. Hale. From the Ballotpedia website, we read: …President Barack Obama nominated Hale to fill a vacancy on the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Hale was confirmed to the court on December 3, 2014, by a voice vote of the Senate.


KRLA Forum

UPDATE: Registration is closed. KRLA will take a contingent to the 2020 March for Life via jet!

march for lifeLeave 12:35 PM on Thursday, January 23, and get home at 8:43 PM on Friday, January 24— That is the plan for the KRLA delegation to the 2020 March for Life!

Our superb coordinator Jerry Durbin introduces to you a better way to travel and be part of the 2020 March— Let’s fly— Bus trips are slow and dangerous if snow accumulates on the road.

The package rate for four people for round-trip airfare, one night lodging and breakfast on Jan. 24 is $316/person. Take a look at the very special itinerary and full pricing here.

Please RSVP by Wednesday, October 30, 2019 by calling 502-895-5959. Planning ahead is how we get the great rates! Be part of a new approach, and send Congress a message by your participation.


KRLA Forum
Schu Montgomery, Opinion contributor | Published 6:34 a.m. ET Oct. 8, 2019 | Courier-Journal OPINION

On the opening day of the National Right to Life Convention in Charleston this past July, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster told an enthusiastic luncheon crowd, “I believe time and history are on our side.”

A Gallup poll had just been released showing a whopping 60% of respondents said abortion should be legal in “only a few circumstances" (39%) or “illegal in all circumstances" (21%). That was a jump of 7 percentage points from just a year earlier.

Grossly underreported, though, even ignored by the media, has been the surge of support among Americans who will “only vote for a candidate who shares their pro-life view on abortion.” As has been the case in practically every election cycle since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the percentage of “single-issue” pro-life voters has outpaced "single-issue" abortion-rights voters by anywhere from 6 to 9 percentage points. In 2016, the numbers were 23% to 17% — a 6-point advantage. Today, the gap is 9 points — 35% to 26%.

Could this dramatic shift reflect American outrage over aggressive efforts by Democrats to make abortion policy more permissive in states like New York, Vermont and Illinois? Or maybe more and more Americans are learning how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has blocked more than 80 times now, floor votes on the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which would give legal rights to newborn infants who survive failed abortions. (The Center for Disease Control reports 143 babies died after being born alive during botched abortions between 2003 and 2014.)

Possibly, the word is getting out (no thanks to the mainstream media), too, that certain politicians are apparently just fine with late-term abortions and even post-birth deaths, in spite of polls consistently showing huge majorities favoring the anti-infanticide reform measure.

Indeed, there is virtue in single-mindedness when choosing who to vote for when casting your ballot. The suffragists are a perfect example. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul (incidentally, all strong abortion opponents) and others believed in the promises of liberty guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and made possible through the amendment process of the Constitution.

You better believe women, like the founding feminists, demanded Americans focus on a single issue. The Democrat-led 65th Congress failed to legislate a woman’s right to vote. So, in the next Congress, Democrats were swept out of power and Republicans led the victory for women’s rights instead.

Abortion, as a single issue, is the most compelling issue facing America today. The right to life for all members of the human family is the most important right guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. As concerned citizens elect candidates on their willingness to protect human life, presidents, legislators and judges will begin to restore protection to the unborn and end abortion on demand.

The anti-abortion movement has been successful in passing life-saving measures including mandatory informed consent and a ban on late-term abortion due, in part, to its uncompromising stance when evaluating candidates. Without the right to life, no other right is possible, or has meaning. A candidate unwilling to rectify the terrible injustice perpetrated by abortionists (killing a defenseless preborn child), should be disqualified from holding public office.

The gravity of restoring the civil right to life to unborn children is especially salient in the Kentucky governor’s race. Republican Matt Bevin has fearlessly defended the most vulnerable. For example, the bill he signed into law requiring abortionists to give women opportunity to view an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion, was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. A judicial appointment by President Donald Trump made all the difference! Elections do have consequences.

Yet, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andy Beshear, as attorney general, refused to defend that very law in the courts, an egregious shirking of his constitutional responsibilities.

If the civil rights of the unborn throughout the nine months of pregnancy are to be restored, then our obligation to vote for candidates who hold the right to life inviolate, becomes as important as democracy itself.

As the late Judge John Noonan so aptly said, “Once or twice in a century an Issue arises … so far-reaching in its consequences and so deep in its foundations that it calls every person to take a stand.”

Vote pro-life on Nov. 5!

Schu Montgomery is on the board of directors of Right to Life of Louisville and is a teacher at Holy Angels Academy.


KRLA Forum
National Right to Life News | Dave Andrusko | October 4, 2019

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has agreed to hear Louisiana's Act 620, the 2014 law that requires abortion clinics to have a physician with admitting privileges at a local hospital in case of emergencies.

The justices will likely hear oral arguments this winter with a decision coming in June 2020.

The High Court met this week to decide what cases it will hear this term. So far, it has not announced whether it will consider the component of Indiana's HE 1337 that requires abortionists to provide women with the opportunity to view an ultrasound of their child at least 18 hours prior to performing abortion.

“We look forward to the Supreme Court reviewing Louisiana's 2014 Unsafe Abortion Protection Act,” said Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director for Louisiana Right to Life. “Abortion facilities should not be provided loopholes when it comes to health and safety standards that apply across the board to outpatient surgical facilities.”

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, told NRL News Today, “The abortion industry says abortion is safe yet they oppose any and all regulations that attempt to protect women seeking an abortion.” Tobias added, “I hope members of the Supreme Court will ask themselves, What is wrong with these abortionists that they can't get admitting privileges at a local hospital?

Read more.



TWEETING @Kentucky RTL

Useful Links



Logically...

Kentucky Right to Life

Kentucky's largest and oldest right to life organization and the official state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee

134 Breckinridge Lane
Louisville, KY 40207

(502) 895 5959
fax (502) 895 7028