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

Planned Parenthood may soon be permitted to do abortions in its downtown Louisville facility on 7th Street.

Judge Greg Stivers wants to know ASAP if the state finds grounds to deny the license.

“You better move this one up to the front of the line," Stivers told Chad Meredith, a lawyer for Bevin.

"Yes, sir. I understand," Meredith said, according to a transcript of the telephonic conference the Courier Journal obtained.

"It can be done," Stivers said. "There's no question it can be done."

Added Stivers: "I can't understand why the secretary of that cabinet could not, could not get this license, this updated license, processed within 45 days."

Meredith responded that the cabinet "will absolutely move heaven and earth" to get the license application processed within that time.

That does not guarantee a favorable decision from the state.

Read more.

We believe that Deputy General Counsel Meredith is being polite, but Planned Parenthood's clinic in Louisville was denied a license because it did not have any Transfer Agreements, as required by Kentucky law. For background, see here. The TA Appeal before the Sixth Circuit will be heard on August 8. Before that time, it is unlikely that PP's license status will change. Please pray that the Appeal will be favorable for babies.


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

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.


KRLA Forum

Fourth in the Amici series

AG Beshear argues that he is a constitutional officer whose source of authority is the people who establish the government, and his primary obligation is to the people. Drawing from language in a previous court case, he states the “Attorney General owes his primary duties to the people – not the Governor or General Assembly…”

Although we can’t speak to every possible or actual case, we do know that the citizens of Kentucky voted for the statute in question and most recently for a heavily pro-life legislature, so if AG Beshear’s primary obligation is to us, then he must uphold pro-life laws and not seek to strike them.

ky_metro_blue_areas.pngAfter all, in Kentucky, the majority is based on population, not on geography. The population has spoken. The geographic areas with a majority of pro-choice voters are only in some metro areas. (The graphic shows the 2016 Presidential Election with only Jefferson and Fayette counties in blue.)

He also argues in the Amicus that he “has not only the power to bring suit when he believes the public's legal or constitutional interests are under threat, but … even the duty to do so.” (based on a legal case concerning a mining company in 1973)

Because the regulation at issue in this action threatens Kentucky women’s constitutional right to access to abortion, the Attorney General is permitted to file this amicus to protect the constitutional interests of the public.
Under the Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky statute, and common law, the Attorney General is sworn to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and Kentucky and to defend the laws of the Commonwealth, so long as those laws pass constitutional muster.

In addition to protecting the U.S. Constitution, AG Beshear desires to support Judge Stivers’ ruling that the Bevin Administration not only defended a needless regulation with no basis in medical science, he even did so on an emergency basis, and threatened hospitals that participated in transfer agreements.

What exactly did the Bevin administration do?



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