Our new logo announces a focused mission— Watch for more news and changes.
RTL of Louisville Annual General Meeting Info
International norms: MOST European nations do not allow elective abortion (8) or limit it to 15 weeks or earlier (39). In contrast, 0 of 50 U.S. states limit abortion to 15 weeks or earlier. In fact, the USA is among a ‘Group of 7’ nations which do allow late-term abortions. This G7 includes: Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.
Rape is not a reason...
A Ryan Bomberger meme
A Ryan Bomberger Meme.
A Ryan Bomberger Meme.
10 week old fetus
Learn about Kentucky’s Dismemberment Law.
All appear or reappear on the Index page, and disappear after a category or individual post is selected.
The KRLA Forum carries up-to-date pro-life news and comment. You may need to refresh this page for the latest view.
Argument date now set by SCOTUS for December 1, 2021
To see the list of Amicus briefs that have been filed by pro-abortion supporters of the Miss. case Respondents, go here.
UPDATE: July 30, 2021
On behalf of pro-life advocates across Kentucky:
“Thank you Leader McConnell, Senator Paul, Congressmen Barr, Comer, Rogers, Guthrie and Massie for your pro-life stance and signing the Congressional Amicus brief in support of Mississippi’s pro-life law. Thank you Attorney General Cameron for signing the Amicus brief of 24 AGs. Thank you State Representatives Bridges, Decker, Fischer, Imes, Petrie and Tipton for signing the Amicus brief of the State Legislators.” - Addia Wuchner
To see the massive list of Amicus briefs that have been filed in support of the Miss. case, go here.
Original postSee related article on KRLA Forum
Mississippi's Attorney General Lynn Fitch has enhanced her appeal to SCOTUS with an Amicus Brief, asking the Court to:
- Clarify what a state’s interests are with respect to human life in the womb
- Consider the many societal changes that outdate Roe v Wade’s premise
- Resettle the abortion debate in states’ legislatures where it belongs
- Overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (the ‘undue burden’ snag in legislation)
Her news releases about her Brief are well worth reading. Read them here and here. An excerpt from one of these makes clear why SCOTUS must help states by returning providence over abortion legislation to their elected representatives:
“There are those who would like to believe that Roe v. Wade settled the issue of abortion once and for all,” said Attorney General Fitch. “But all it did was establish a special-rules regime for abortion jurisprudence that has left these cases out of step with other Court decisions and neutral principles of law applied by the Court. As a result, state legislatures, and the people they represent, have lacked clarity in passing laws to protect legitimate public interests, and artificial guideposts have stunted important public debate on how we, as a society, care for the dignity of women and their children. It is time for the Court to set this right and return this political debate to the political branches of government.”
The National RTL with Louisiana RTL has also filed a Brief with more explanation on why it is imperative to resolve the current confusion and mayhem that mark the nation’s abortion debate. For example, in the Dobbs (Miss. case) trial, the judge did not even allow Miss. (the State) to enter evidence in defense of its law. These include protecting pre-born human life (including from pain), protecting maternal health, guarding against sex-, race-, and disability, and other vital interests. This has been true in many such trials in many states including in Ky!
The original “Question Presented” for SCOTUS is:
- Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
- Whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women's health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Casey's “undue burden” standard or Hellerstedt‘s balancing of benefits and burdens.
- Whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that protects women's health from the dangers of late-term abortions.
This case could affect other pro-life legislation that is mired in courts across the country, including our own Heartbeat and No-discrimination laws. Mississippi is also awaiting a decision on a Heartbeat Law.
Online discussions are already amplifying the “Question”
Is the so-called conservative majority on SCOTUS a fact or is it a fable? Perhaps this case will reveal the truth. Or not.
Can they abort the baby a.k.a. fetus (to socially distance), cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too? That is the question.
Do they follow The Constitution, a consensus of laws for the People and our Posterity, acknowledge the Declaration: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (without diversity including ageism), or are they socially progressive and subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion, the wicked solution? That, too, is the question.
About fetal abnormalities
The Mississippi Law which was challenged by Jackson Women’s Health prohibits all abortions after 15 weeks except in cases of health emergencies or fatal fetal abnormalities. Health emergencies occur, but according to an ObGyn and former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, “Abortion is worthless for saving women’s lives.” He explains why in a presentation to students, in a video shown on this website.
There are many cases where an early ultrasound or medical test shows a severe abnormality, but later on, a healthy baby is born. Tests are not always accurate. Often, a woman with a fetus who is abnormal will miscarry. As well, some women do not want an abortion even when it is known that the child will die in her womb.
During the spring of 2020 a testimony was presented by Rep. Melinda Gibbons Prunty in the Ky Legislature to show support for the HB 67, the predecessor to HB 91 (2021), the Yes For Life bill. She explained that a woman may not need to have an abortion based on a diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality. The baby can be delivered, allowing her time for bonding and grieving. Her testimony is at about 26 minutes on KET.org, here.
Earlier this week, LifeNews.com and other online news services reported that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a legal case addressing a law that bans abortions after 15 weeks. The case will be heard in the autumn of 2021.
The 2018 Mississippi law prohibits abortions after 15 weeks except when there are risks to the life or physical health of the mother, or fatal fetal anomalies…
Mississippi’s law highlights a conflict between the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade and the court’s repeated affirmation in subsequent cases that states have a legitimate interest in limiting abortion and protecting “vulnerable and innocent life” from the moment of conception.
“Every human life is valuable, and Mississippi’s law is a commonsense step toward protecting unborn children and their mothers from the harms of late-term abortion,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Denise Harle. “The law protects the life of a baby who can already move around and kick in her mom’s womb— a child who has a heartbeat, can taste what her mom eats, and can experience pain. And the law also protects women, since late-term abortions grow increasingly dangerous to the mother’s health. Women and their children both deserve real health care; that’s why we’re glad the Supreme Court has decided to take up this matter.” (ref)
This Forum reported last fall that SCOTUS would hear this case, but the timeline was pushed forward to this week.
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration’s request for the reinstatement of the FDA rules requiring an in-person doctor visit before a woman obtains abortion pills.
LifeNews stated: The dangers of de-regulating the abortion drugs are serious, and the consequences are being seen in England. In March, the British government temporarily allowed the abortion drugs to be mail-ordered during the pandemic. By July, reports began to surface of women dying after taking the drugs.
NRLC’s Carol Tobias said: “We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the serious nature of chemical abortions and the need for the FDA to have protocols in place to protect women from potentially life-threatening and devastating side effects…”
LifeSiteNews predicted: The SCOTUS ruling is premised on the federal government having the power to decide FDA regulations… it is all but certain that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will suspend or permanently scrap the basic health and safety regulation soon after taking power.
With the October 8 decision by the Supreme Court to allow abortion pills to be sold by mail AGAINST FDA REGULATIONS, there are sure to be many home abortions until the matter is fully decided. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
The district court judge who ruled that the pandemic makes it necessary for women (nationwide) to get pills without seeing a doctor in person has been advised by SCOTUS to “review his ruling and issue a new order within 40 days.” The case will then be revisited, and as stated on the SCOTUS blog, by the time … the proceedings return to the Supreme Court, the court may have welcomed a ninth member.
The SCOTUS blog further noted that “Thursday’s order may well reflect a compromise in the wake of the Sept. 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which left the court with only eight members.” This makes it sound like RBG’s death was honored by letting women handle their own abortions, a pathetic footnote in the annals of abortion lore.
As reported in the recently published 2019 abortion statistics, of 3,664 abortions performed in Ky, 3,249 were done when the pre-born baby was from 1-10 weeks gestation.
On the Planned Parenthood website, it is stated:
- For people who are 9-10 weeks pregnant, it [the abortion pill] works about 91-93 out of 100 times. If you're given an extra dose of medicine, it works about 99 out of 100 times.
- For people who are 10-11 weeks pregnant, it works about 87 out of 100 times. If you're given an extra dose of medicine, it works about 98 out of 100 times.
- The abortion pill usually works, but if it doesn’t, you can take more medicine or have an in-clinic abortion to complete the abortion.
Note, the FDA rules require that the abortion pill be provided in-person by a medical professional to a woman UP TO 10 WEEKS of pregnancy. So, why does PP stretch it to 11 weeks?
Medical abortion not a new trend
It seems likely that many of Ky’s abortions are already done at home. But at least up to last week, the woman was required to see a physician in a clinic for evaluation and some emergency assistance. And, by law, the doctor was required to tell the patient about the Abortion Reversal Pill. That law passed in Ky in 2019. Some ladies have reported that they were never told about it. We doubt that the advisory will be included with the abortion pills received by mail.
For a time, and perhaps from now on, abortion is a DIY, do-it-yourself procedure.
How can we spread the GOOD word that a medical abortion can be reversed?
Know the facts! When you have the opportunity to share information, be sure your friends and acquaintances learn that if a woman changes her mind after taking the abortion pill, she can go online to AbortionPillReversal.com. She should call the Emergency Phone, 877.558.0333.
Currently, this service can recommend one pregnancy center and three physicians in Kentucky who are in the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and able to prescribe progesterone to a client wishing to reverse an abortion.
This is a safe procedure. See more information here.
Share this important news!
Supreme Court Denies President Trump’s Request to Stop Selling Dangerous Abortion Pills by Mail
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal Thursday to require the abortion industry to follow federal safety regulations when it sells abortion drugs to women.
The justices’ decision not to rule immediately on the Trump administration’s appeal means abortion facilities may continue to ignore Food and Drug Administration safety requirements for the abortion drug mifepristone, or Mifeprex.
No pro-life litigation will come before the Supreme Court this quarter*, however, an unresolved issue could be settled soon. The issue is the abortion pill and how to prescribe it. Unbelievable though it may seem, the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) is not opposed to women aborting themselves with pills that they order online, following online consultation, but no visit, exam, guidance or communication with a doctor in person. There are rational and serious objections to this. See here and here.
For this to be legalized, the FDA REMS (Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy) that requires the abortion pill to be dispensed only in clinics, must be overturned by SCOTUS.
Nevertheless, in a new development, on Sept. 30 it was reported that the Honeybee Health online pharmacy is now “distributing abortion pills directly to patients within the country by mail, now legal [ed: really?] because of a recent federal court ruling… While (District Court Judge) Judge Chuang’s ruling only extends to patients seeking care during the COVID-19 health crisis plus 30 days, and the Trump administration is appealing the injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court, this window of opportunity is proving the viability of a new model of abortion health care.”
Why wait for SCOTUS? The Rule of Law continues to be ignored by those who believe they are a law unto themselves.
*Facts change quickly. See this article for possible abortion case for SCOTUS this quarter.
The opportunity to provide important safety measures for women seeking abortions has been quashed by the Supreme Court. The ruling for the June v. Russo case was announced this morning. Justice Roberts sided with the liberals. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the dissent. The KRLA Media Release is here.
An amicus brief on behalf of Louisiana (see related article) was filed by the Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) to assist SCOTUS in its review of La. Department of Health v. June Medical Services LLC. A related article in the Wall Street Journal is here.
The AAPLOG brief questions whether ACOG (the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) is truly objective in its abortion views, and accuses ACOG of being an abortion advocacy organization.
On page 15 of the brief, AAPLOG states that it has an interest in showing that ACOG “does not represent the views of either its membership or the 85% of obstetricians and gynecologists in the United States who do not perform abortions.”
An excerpt makes clear how ACOG has reversed its pro-life stance over the years:
ACOG’s 1959 Manual of Standards in Obstetric-Gynecologic Practice permitted abortion only “where the death of the mother might reasonably be expected to result from natural causes, growing out of or aggravated by the pregnancy, unless the child is destroyed.” The Manual also mandated that abortions could be performed only in accredited hospitals. ACOG’s Committee on Maternal Welfare, noting that the justifications for therapeutic abortions were disappearing, “hoped that they may reach an absolute minimum within the foreseeable future,” doing away with abortions altogether…
…As of the 1950s, ACOG’s contribution to public debate about abortion was based solely upon medical science. Dr. Duncan Reid (ACOG board member) of Harvard Medical School argued that “the medical profession should not become actively involved in debates about social mores. … [T]he emergence of abortion and sterilization as political issues would challenge the scientific basis on which physicians’ decisions were based. Reid said, ‘If it [abortion] becomes a social problem then the medical profession has to settle the social problem, and I think we, as doctors, are placed in a position where we do not belong.’”
The amicus brief delineates ACOG’s history, and discloses that in every major abortion case, ACOG has argued consistently against any limitation of abortion. The document cites from 19 legal cases and provides many references to statements in ACOG reports, legal briefs and other sources. Read more!
IF ONLY this brief could have been filed on behalf of Kentucky in any of the numerous ACLU/EMW/PP legal suits which have claimed that ACOG is the scientific, medical authority on the abortion issue, how might the outcomes for our pro-life laws been affected?
Immense THANKS to AAPLOG for revealing the slippery slope engineered by ACOG over 50 years to re-make abortion as medical “care”.
Second in the License to Abort Little Ones series
On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Louisiana’s 2014 Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, and La. is excited! We should be, too. This case could affect the outcome of the Kentucky Transfer Agreement (TA) case that currently awaits resolution at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Will the TA panel of judges wait to hear the SCOTUS decision on the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act before handing down its ruling for Kentucky? There is a common sense practice of not investing too much time when it is known that a similar case may affect a lower court ruling.
The Appellate Court does NOT share any information on when an opinion will be issued. SCOTUS may not rule for many months, and the Sixth Circuit Court may wish to get our TA case off their docket soon. No one knows.
The La. case is similar to a Texas case which SCOTUS ruled against in 2016.
The Texas provisions under debate in the case required that abortion clinics be licensed as ambulatory care facilities with all the amenities of a surgical center, and that clinic doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
"Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution," said the 5-3 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer. Read more.
Breyer’s decision was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor. Barak Obama applauded it.
Like the Texas case, the La. law requires the abortion clinic to have formal agreements with local hospitals allowing them to transfer patients if needed.
Pundits have observed that SCOTUS accepted the La. case to review because of its new composition that includes Judges Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Otherwise it would have stood on precedent because of the similarity of the cases.
So, if Judges Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor vote to disallow the La. law, will Chief Justice John Roberts join Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, assuming they vote to uphold it?
An article on LifeNews.com encourages pro-lifers to be aware of this SCOTUS trial and to actively make known your concern for aborted women’s safety.
The Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s Appeal to revisit D&E abortion and ban it, but if Kentucky’s current appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court fails, could SCOTUS view this issue in a new light?
An excellent Friend of the Court brief has been filed by 16 states in support of Kentucky’s Appeal to reverse the District Court decision not to uphold HB454, our law banning Dismemberment Abortion.
HB 454, which bans the brutal and grotesque practice of live dismemberment abortions, was passed by the 2018 Kentucky General Assembly with overwhelming bipartisan support from legislators and signed into law by Gov. Bevin. The ACLU and a Louisville abortion clinic quickly challenged the law, and a U.S. District judge in May ruled in their favor.
The attorneys general of Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia argue that the Sixth Circuit should reverse the District Court's erroneous opinion.
In their brief, the attorneys general assert that the District judge's ruling “misapplied the law in three ways”: 1) HB 454 does not place an undue burden on women seeking an abortion, 2) it does not place an undue burden on abortion providers, and 3) it should not have been struck down in its entirety by the lower court. (emphasis added)
Read the Amicus Brief here.
Recently, SCOTUS declined to review the Alabama Dismemberment Abortion case. Judge Clarence Thomas joined the progressives on this vote and noted in his concurrence: “Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard, we cannot continue blinking at the reality of what this Court has wrought.“
Judge Thomas pointed out that in previous rulings SCOTUS has given credence to abortion providers’ claims that other methods of abortion are too risky. Court precedents are roadblocks. The Alabama case did not present a way to re-argue the precedent.
Though the Alabama and Kentucky cases are very similar, the Amicus Brief on behalf of Kentucky’s law highlights the ‘undue burden’ legal hitch— Attention Judge Thomas!
KRLA staff and friends sat through the HB454 trial proceedings. We know that our state attorneys presented excellent arguments for why other methods of abortion are in fact LESS risky than D&E, since D&E requires MANY passes into the woman’s birth passage to grab and tear apart the baby’s limbs, whereas a single injection of digoxin will end the life of the fetus. No need to insert steel instruments into the woman’s body numerous times, risking injury to the uterus and more.
Somehow there was no time allotted for Kentucky’s expert witness who came to explain the needle guide that makes the digoxin injection simple and very safe. Our lead attorney Stephen Pitt strenuously objected. The Judge agreed his written testimony could be included in the summary filed following the trial.
So, should Kentucky’s HB454 case need to be appealed to SCOTUS, we believe that Judge Thomas and others may see a reason to revisit the ‘undue burden’ issue. Perhaps the confusion of the numerous suits and rulings have numbed all of us to the real issue at hand.
For any who may want to review the pro-life legislation that SCOTUS has considered since the appointment of Kavanaugh, see here.
Thank You, Kentucky State Legislators and Governor Matt Bevin
The four bills that were introduced by Kentucky’s Pro-life Caucus on January 10 ALL passed the current legislative session. We know our Governor will sign them all!
SB 227, introduced on Feb. 15 to protect Born Alive Infants, did not make it to the finish line. We hope this bill will be re-introduced next year.
How does it feel to live in a pro-life state? Wonderful! What relief we pro-lifers feel (!), knowing that the majority of our legislators have the deepest concern for pre-born babies. Perhaps there are many things in your community and state that you would like to see changed, but at least we do have respect for life. The majority of us are holding firm that our U.S. Constitution means what it says about our Right to Life.
The bills, SB 9, the “heartbeat bill”; SB 50, abortion pill reporting requirements AND the doctor must explain the Abortion Pill Reversal Pill to the client; HB 5, no abortion for discriminatory reasons based on sex, race, color, national origin or disability; and HB 148, to end abortion if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned by SCOTUS— ALL had bipartisan support. That is further proof that Kentucky is, in the main, PRO-LIFE.
Will Kentucky be the first state NOT to have an abortion clinic? There is national speculation about that. With the ACLU challenges to our pro-life laws and bills not yet signed into law, we can’t say.
Currently we have only ONE, the EMW clinic in Louisville. And, Planned Parenthood has a clinic in Louisville with aggressive plans to establish a larger presence.
We can’t rest on our laurels but we can enjoy the moment. Today, we are passionately grateful and taking the day off. (But we are in the office!)
Enjoy the full testimony of Abby Johnson at the Public Protection Committee hearing.
- Buffer Zone
- Medical Conscience Rights
- Supreme Court
- Abortion Pill Reversal
- Political Action
- Transfer Agreement
- Artists for Life
- Pro-life Events
- D&E Abortion
- Planned Parenthood
- Pro-life Vaccines
CURRENT KRLA E-NEWS
Posts on this page
7/27/2021 4:49:21 PMWe will not know the verdict till 2022.
5/21/2021 7:50:01 PMViability issue will be addressed
10/14/2020 12:27:08 PMTwo SCOTUS justices dissented in the decision to override the FDA rules on the abortion pill
10/7/2020 12:56:44 PMWill SCOTUS review any pro-life cases in Autumn 2020?
6/29/2020 4:00:16 PMThe Louisiana June v. Russo case has been decided in favor of abortion providers
3/7/2020 4:28:04 PMSCOTUS takes up Louisiana case; decision may dramatically affect abortion industry
2/28/2020 8:20:43 PMSupreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 4 in Louisiana case relating to safety standards for abortion clinics
7/31/2019 5:30:44 PMIf Kentucky’s current HB454 appeal at the Sixth District Court fails, could SCOTUS view the issue in a new light?
3/15/2019 5:35:56 PMKentucky pro-life caucus good for their word