KRLA Forum

By

2019 NRLC CONVENTION

In Charleston, S.C. July 5-6. Enjoy a vacation and be part of the fun! REGISTER NOW!

Folly Beach

Folly Beach is just south of Charleston. Its pier stretches 1,000 feet into the Atlantic.

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

For background on the Ultrasound Law continuing legal case, see this post and this page.

The EMW-ACLU Appeal to overturn the Bevin Administration’s successful Appeal to save Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law— is pending and may be read by anyone who desires to have a PACER account. PACER stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.

The opening pages of the EMW-ACLU Appeal list all the attorneys who are working on the case. Then, a Statement of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests asks two questions:

  1. Is said party (EMW) a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly-owned corporation?
    Answer: No.
  2. Is there a publicly-owned corporation, not a party to the appeal that has a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?
    Answer: No.

Shouldn’t there be a third question?

3. Is there a publicly-funded corporation that will benefit from this Appeal if it succeeds?

Answer: Yes, Planned Parenthood receives $500 million annually from the U.S. taxpayers and will certainly benefit if this Appeal succeeds.

And how about a fourth question?
4. Is there an innocent public group who will be harmed financially if this Appeal succeeds?
Answer: Yes, the taxpayers of Kentucky will be the losers, since they will pay the tab for the extensive legal work performed by numerous attorneys from the ACLU of New York, the ACLU of Kentucky, and a law firm from New York, not to mention all the attorneys working for EMW since the suit was first filed— following the passage of HB2 in 2017 by the Kentucky Legislature.

Of course, a new Appeal could send the case to SCOTUS, so we assume it could take some time to determine who pays. We do not know all the legal ins and outs.

And another question:
5. Who pays the ACLU?
Not EMW. The ACLU does not charge its clients for its services. So, EMW can thank George Soros and others who donate to the ACLU for helping them to pursue their Appeal.

But maybe the full panel of the Sixth Circuit will turn down the Appeal. Watch for more news.


KRLA Forum

Our celebration about the successful Appeal of the Bevin administration to uphold Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law— was short-lived.

The Courier-Journal reports:

A Kentucky abortion clinic is asking a federal appeals court to rehear an appeal in the case of a state law that requires doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients prior to abortion.

A divided panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that the 2017 law is constitutional, reversing a lower court judge.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, the state's only abortion provider, filed a petition Monday asking that the full appeals court hear the case. The petition cites a First Amendment issue of ‘exceptional importance.’

What a disappointment. Stay tuned. Stay strong.


KRLA Forum

A disappointing ruling against Kentucky's law to ban Dismemberment Abortion was pronounced Friday, May 10, 2019. An update to the story published May 13 includes a TV interview with KRLA executive director Margie Montgomery. Click on the image.

dismemberment_collage_r.jpg

In the spring of 2018 the Kentucky legislature passed a law to end D&E abortions. The law states:

"Bodily dismemberment, crushing, or human vivisection" means a procedure in which a person, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, dismembers the living unborn child and extracts portions, pieces, or limbs of the unborn child from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or a similar instrument that, through the convergence of two (2) rigid levers, slices, crushes, or grasps, or performs any combination of those actions on, any portion, piece, or limb of the unborn child's body to cut or separate the portion, piece, or limb from the body. The term includes a procedure that is used to cause the death of an unborn child and in which suction is subsequently used to extract portions, pieces, or limbs of the unborn child after the unborn child's death; …

It was further legislated that there would be no penalty for the pregnant woman and that it would not apply in a medical emergency.

A related Amicus brief may be read here. Background on the legislation is here.

Governor Bevin has promised to appeal the decision all the way to SCOTUS if necessary. Let’s work hard to re-elect our incomparable pro-life Governor!

This news has been reported in the Courier-Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and other media. We will report more information in the coming weeks.


KRLA Forum

Sixth and final in the Amici series

When Planned Parenthood (PP) could not get a Transfer Agreement (TA) with any hospital in Louisville, it got one with U of Ky. in Lexington and Clark Memorial Hospital in Indiana. These were considered by the Bevin Administration (BA) too far from PP or in the case of Clark Co., not in Kentucky, which has the duty of oversight for the TA providers. Its jurisdiction does not extend to Indiana.

AG Beshear’s Argument 1 is that a state cannot rely on another state to protect a woman’s 14th amendment right. That was in response to the BA statement during the trial that a woman can get an abortion in Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, etc., which is already true given that Kentucky currently only has one abortion clinic, the EMW in Louisville.

Thus, AG Beshear’s statements that Kentucky should let Indiana contract with PP in Louisville for a TA, but should not consider other state’s abortion clinics to be suitable for Kentucky women, seem contradictory.

Argument 2A says that “The BA has unduly burdened women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights” and 2B states that TAs “provide no benefit to clinic patients.” We disagree.

Regarding Argument 2A, as stated above, women currently do get abortions in nearby areas over state lines, which shows they are not unduly burdened in their pursuit of an abortion.

As for 2B, we lobbied for TAs way back in the 1990s, and have never reversed our position on this important service for women.

TAs may not be frequently needed, but they are important to have should the need arise. A current story that underscores this fact is here. Another is here.

We urge the judges of the Sixth Circuit Court to uphold Kentucky Law.


KRLA Forum

Fifth in the Amici series

In the Amicus, Gov. Bevin is accused by our AG of seeking to place in his budget “a provision excluding state funding for any ‘affiliate’ of abortion facilities, which caused [U of L Hospital’s parent company] KentuckyOne* to believe that its state funding would be jeopardized by a transfer agreement (TA) between U of L Hospital and any abortion clinic.” (In business law an affiliate is not part of the company with whom it affiliates. Thus, unless UofL Hospital owned Planned Parenthood or vice versa, there is no formal affiliation that could be stated. By law, an affiliate of PP would be a direct subsidiary.)

The media carried a false story that the Governor’s office had pressured UofL to cancel its TA with Planned Parenthood. During the trial, representatives of KentuckyOne stated categorically that no one in the Bevin administration had pressured them to cancel the TA.

Kentucky’s attorneys brought out that the state is not opposed whatsoever to TAs —which state law requires; it was simply a matter that the existing TAs were not legal documents. How would a contract with a hospital department be legal? (See post 2 of the series.)

An aside

Kentucky law also states that public funds may not go toward paying for abortion services. This statute was on the books as early as 1980. Thus, UofL Hospital does not perform abortions but, needless to say, it would be lawful for it to assist in saving the life of a woman who was damaged by an abortion.

In 2017 the “no public funds for abortion” statute was revised to permit re-ordering of who is eligible for funds, and this year President Trump further adjusted that policy so TAs may be the least of PP’s worries at this time.

The Trump Administration’s new final regulations for the federal Title X family planning program make significant changes to the program and will:

  • Block the availability of federal funds to family planning providers that also offer abortion services;
  • Prohibit sites that participate in Title X from referring pregnant clients to abortion providers;
  • Eliminate current requirements for Title X sites to provide non-directive pregnancy options counseling that includes information about prenatal care/delivery, adoption, and abortion;
  • Prioritize providers that offer comprehensive primary health care services over those that specialize in reproductive health services; and
  • Encourage participation by “non-traditional” organizations such as those that only offer one method of family planning, such as fertility awareness-based methods.

Read more.

The American Medical Association, AGs of many states, PP, and others have filed suit in federal court to block the new Title X regulations, stating that they violate the Constitution and federal law.

And on it goes.

*In June 2017 the UofL Hospital split from KentuckyOne and currently is managed by UofL’s University Medical Center.



CURRENT PRO-LIFE NEWS

powered by Surfing Waves

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