Website forms and data entry except PayPal closed for maintenance.

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

Continuing from our previous post, let’s look at some of the points made in Document 5 of the Plaintiffs. Our comments are in green for differentiation.

Point 1 says, …“the 6-week Ban will prohibit approximately 90% of the abortions currently performed in the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the Reason Ban makes it a crime to provide an abortion for a woman whose decision is influenced by either a diagnosis or the potential for a diagnosis of a disability, or the sex, race, color, or national origin of the embryo or fetus. Both Bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and will inflict irreparable harm on Kentuckians if they are allowed to take effect.”

If discovery were allowed, this claim would be challenged. What is ‘irreparable harm’ in this context? On the PubMed subsite of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, it is stated:
Since estrogen, which increases breast cancer risk, is secreted during the first half of pregnancy in order to stimulate breast growth, abortion at that time will expose the mother to high concentrations of estrogen when cells are undifferentiated. (In ER-positive breast cancer, cancerous cells receive their growth signals from the hormone estrogen.)

If Judge Hale were to search for information on the link between breast cancer and abortion, he would have a very hard time finding any association. Google has lined up the pro-abortion sources to answer this question through its “autofill” search results. That is what happens when a single search engine becomes dominant.

However, the National Right to Life website offers many articles to confirm the fact.

Breast cancer is irreparable harm, and so is the devastating experience of aborting ones own child. The recent decision to have a woman view an Ultrasound of her fetus, if she desires to, by the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court stated, in part:
As was argued in a related case (Gonzales v. Carhart), the woman must live with her decision, and since it is an established fact that some women come to regret their abortion, experiencing depression and more, the importance of informed consent is incumbent upon the provider.

In Doc 5, Point 27 states: Legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States, and is substantially safer than continuing a pregnancy through to childbirth.

What would discovery bring to light?

Point 51 says, If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy against her will, it can pose a risk to her physical, mental, and emotional health, and even her life, as well as to the stability and wellbeing of her family, including her existing children.

Again, discovery would bring to light the immense, documented damage that abortion does to women physically and emotionally, and to her ‘existing children’. (Was that a slip of the tongue?)

Finally, Plaintiffs asked the Court:

A. To immediately issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction, restraining Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office from enforcing the Act.
B. To enter a judgment declaring that the Act violates the United States Constitution.
C. To award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.-1988.
D. To grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Despite Kentucky’s objections, the TRO was approved by Judge Hale on March 15, a day after the Heartbeat bill passed the Kentucky Legislature.


Comments



Comments are closed

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