Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 19, 2024 / 13:52 pm (CNA).
Here’s a roundup of pro-life-related developments that took place in the U.S. this week.
Trump says states will decide abortion, Heritage Foundation goes ‘too far’
In an interview with Fox News released during the Republican National Convention, former president Donald Trump reasserted his stance that abortion is exclusively a state issue and said that it “will never be a federal issue again.”
“By getting rid of Roe v. Wade I was able to get it back into the states and now I’ve given it back to the people, the people are voting and frankly the people are voting in many cases quite liberally,” he said.
He added: “They can vote the way they want, it’s not a federal issue, it will never be a federal issue again.”
In the interview Trump was being questioned about his stance on Project 2025, a policy agenda published by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
He distanced himself from Project 2025, particularly with its stance on abortion, arguing that it is “too severe” and “goes way too far.”
Project 2025 holds that “abortion and euthanasia are not health care” and that the Health and Human Services Department must ensure that all its programs and activities are “rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from Day 1 until natural death.”
It also posits that the FDA should reinstate a ban on mailing abortion pills and administering the drugs via telemedicine without in-person doctor visits.
“They have a strong view on abortion,” Trump said. “From what I’ve heard it’s not too far, [it’s] way too far, they’ve gone really too far.”
Abortion group sues Arkansas for invalidating broad abortion amendment
A pro-abortion group is suing Arkansas after its Secretary of State John Thurston invalidated a proposed abortion amendment, blocking its placement on the state ballot this November.
According to Thurston, the group, which goes by the name “Arkansans for Limited Government,” did not follow the proper procedures when submitting its request to have the amendment added to the ballot.
In response, the abortion group filed a lawsuit with the Arkansas Supreme Court in which it asked the court to reverse Thurston’s decision and order him to resume processing its request.
The group contends that it followed all necessary procedures to have the proposal added and that Thurston’s decision constitutes a “disregard for the power expressly reserved by the people in the Arkansas Constitution.”
In response, Thurston stood by his decision, telling Arkansans for Limited Government in a July 15 letter that the “defects” in their request “required me to reject your petition.”
Currently, Arkansas protects unborn life beginning at conception, only allowing abortion in cases in which the mother’s life is in danger.
If successfully passed by Arkansas voters, the abortion amendment would mandate that the state not “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict” abortion before 18 weeks of pregnancy. The amendment would further prohibit the state from restricting abortion at all stages in cases of rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or health of the mother.
Iowa abortion supporters ask to block heartbeat law
After the Iowa Supreme Court issued a decision in June to allow the state’s pro-life heartbeat law to go into effect, an attorney for Planned Parenthood is asking the court to reconsider its decision.
The court’s decision was based on the belief that abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution. The decision is temporary and allows the heartbeat law, which protects life beginning at six weeks, to go into effect while legal challenges against it proceed in the courts.
According to reporting by the Iowa Capital Dispatch, attorney Peter Im, a lawyer with Planned Parenthood, is petitioning the court to review and potentially revise its decision. Im is arguing that laws restricting abortion should have to face higher legal scrutiny and not impose an “undue burden” on abortion access.
The Iowa heartbeat law could take effect as early as Friday evening depending on a ruling by a state district court in the afternoon.
Montana judge orders state to count signatures from inactive voters
A Montana district judge issued a temporary ruling on Tuesday that requires the state to count inactive voters’ signatures in support of a broad abortion amendment.
This comes after Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen invalidated thousands of signatures from citizens whose voting status was “inactive.”
Judge Mike Menehan ruled that the state must count those signatures in its assessment of whether to add the abortion proposal to this November’s ballot.
If added to the ballot and passed by voters, the Montana abortion amendment would prohibit the state from “denying or burdening the right to abortion” before fetal viability or beyond when a health care professional determines it is “medically indicated to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
Pennsylvania governor refuses to defend law banning state-funded abortion
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, filed a court notice on Tuesday that the state will not defend its long-standing law banning Medicaid funding for abortion.
The ban on tax-funded Medicaid abortion, which has been in place since 1982, is being challenged by Allegheny Reproductive Health Center, a Pittsburgh abortion clinic, and several other abortion groups, in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.
In a Tuesday statement, Shapiro said that “the current ban imposes a burden on women that is not sustainable and therefore violates our state constitution.”
“My administration looks forward to making our arguments in court and is urging the court to strike down this ban that denies Pennsylvanians access to health care solely because of their sex and clearly runs counter to the recent Supreme Court ruling,” he said.
Abortion is currently legal in Pennsylvania until 24 weeks of pregnancy. There were 34,838 abortions in Pennsylvania in 2022, the most recent year with complete data.
Wisconsin leaders join lawsuit to establish right to abortion
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats, have joined a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court to establish a right to abortion in the state constitution.
In a Wednesday statement, Evers said he was joining the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski, which is centered on whether the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees a right to abortion.
Evers claimed that efforts to enshrine abortion into state law have “never been more important” because of what he called “looming Republican threats” to enact a national abortion ban and restrict access to birth control and emergency contraception.
After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a pre-Roe law protecting life at conception went into effect for a short time until a ruling by a district judge found that the law did not apply to abortion.
Currently, abortion is legal in Wisconsin until 20 weeks of pregnancy.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
If a baby is a baby in Tennessee, and it deserves the protections afforded by the Constitution, THEN it simply cannot become something else because it crossed a state line. As Obama famously said when asked about the creation of life, “that is above my pay grade”…and it was. Unfortunately, it’s above Trumps too. GOD help us.
Never say never, what goes around comes around.
To the best of my understanding, murder is a local/state issue, and the Federal gov’t only gets involved when a federal agent (or some such) is murdered. If this understanding is correct, then it makes sense for abortion to be a State issue, as honestly, most issues are supposed to be “a State issue.”
.
“Pro-life” is an extremely elastic definition. Only a tiny minority of people are 1) opposed to contraception–even abortifacient ones 2) completely against abortion in the case of rape/incest/life or health of mother/fetal abnormality/etc 3) oppose IVF.
The various Christian denominations (as I assume Muslim ones, Jewish ones, the Hindus, the Sikhs, Buddhists) all have their own teachings.
It is simply not possible to have a Federal law on this, unless perhaps a 15 week ban such as is common in Europe, but by this point, I think “the well has been poisoned” and that is highly unlikely.
Buy the truth and sell it not…There’s a price to pay for the essential truths of life. We failed black people when we sold them out for political expediency. Lincoln came to see the woe due to those who settled for a lie. I hope I’m wrong…but I don’t think so. Woe is a good word. We are about to understand the Almighty’s definition of it, and our lack of willingness to stand up for truth will make the Civil War PALE in comparison.
“‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided” (Abraham Lincoln,
Illinois Republican State Convention, June 16, 1858).
Bringing a genocidal Lincoln into the discussion does not clarify the issues. And personally, I hope the Union is dissolved. It has become a tyrannical monster.
Well, and what kind of a union has to be kept together by force?
I liked the original idea of independent states that would come together for the common good when appropriate but otherwise leave each other alone in peace.
I always appreciate God’s grace in choosing unlikely people to carry out essential tasks in this sad world, and Trump did win many pro-life victories, but we can recognize in his shallow understanding of history, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer .
I’m pretty sure it’s mentioned in the Federal Register as far as coverages.
Politicians are very good with “diverting language”.
Viz. – “Abortion will never be a Federal issue again.”
1. Trump is saying that abortion remains a viable political option at least for the term of his Presidency if he is elected, all such comers welcomed.
2. Right now he is saying that pro-life – LIFE – is an extreme position along a spectrum. He behaves as if this is a valid conviction.
3. While Trump could soften on 2., he is perpetuating the evil that says it is not possible to lead and institute criminalizing abortion.
4. And he is perpetuating the other evil that says you can run bargains on this matter, in this matter, around this matter and beside this matter; and you can crush out bargains AGAINST this matter as never absolutely necessary.
5. No-one can get around the fact that in the case of abortion pragmatism never overrules principle. Trump and the GOP have to conjure ways to make doing it look right.
6. The projection that it is no longer a Federal issue is not reality, it’s called lying; and Trump and others would have us believe we can do this with clear political conscience and come out smelling like daisies.