abortion

No Picture
News Briefs

Pro-abortion groups reach signature threshold to get amendment on Arizona ballot

April 3, 2024 Catholic News Agency 1
A sonogram picture of a fetus in the second trimester of a woman’s pregnancy. / Credit: Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 3, 2024 / 16:00 pm (CNA).

Pro-abortion groups that are trying to enshrine a right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution surpassed the required number of signatures to get their initiative on the November ballot.

The ad hoc coalition of pro-abortion organizations called Arizona for Abortion Access says it has collected more than 500,000 signatures — more than 120,000 more than is required to get the proposal on the ballot. The secretary of state’s office will still need to verify the signatures before the initiative will officially be on the ballot. 

The groups surpassed its goal more than three months before the state’s July 3 deadline to submit signatures. 

“We are well on our way to the November ballot thanks to all of you, and we won’t let up,” the coalition posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Arizonans deserve to have a say in our own health care decisions, once and for all.”

The Arizona for Abortion Access coalition includes well-known promoters of abortion, such as Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

Current Arizona law permits elective abortions until the 15th week of pregnancy. The proposed constitutional amendment that will likely be on the ballot would extend elective abortion through the second trimester of pregnancy and legalize many abortions until the moment of birth.

The proposed amendment, which would add a new section to the state’s constitution, would declare that “every individual has a fundamental right to abortion.” It would prohibit the state from enacting restrictions on abortion until the point of viability. Although the amendment would allow some restrictions after viability, the state could not restrict post-viability abortions when the treating physician (who is often the abortionist) claims an abortion is necessary to protect the mother’s life, physical health, or mental health.

Under the proposed amendment, viability is defined as the point when the unborn child has “a significant “likelihood of … sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” There is, however, no week-based limit, and viability would be determined by the treating physician or abortionist.

Arizona Right to Life, which opposes the proposed amendment, has warned that the proposal has “no restriction on the inhumane procedure of partial-birth abortion” and would “override parental rights” because “the necessity for parental consent would no longer be mandated if a 12-, 13-, or 14-year-old girl seeks an abortion.”

“[This proposal] eliminates almost every pro-life legislation in Arizona,” the organization warned. “The comprehensive undoing of laws safeguarding women and the unborn in Arizona would result from the loopholes, exceptions, and qualifications present in the language.​”

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Arizona was one of nearly two dozen states to enact pro-life legislation by restricting abortion at the 15th week of pregnancy.

Several states have also enacted new pro-abortion legislation since the decision and some have approved amendments to their state constitutions. Since the Supreme Court decision, every pro-life proposal that has gone before voters in a ballot initiative has failed and every pro-abortion proposal that has received a vote via ballot initiative has passed.

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

South Dakota to create ‘Med Ed’ video to combat ‘abortion misinformation’

March 28, 2024 Catholic News Agency 2
South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem arrives to speak during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting on Feb. 23, 2024, in National Harbor, Maryland. / Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Mar 28, 2024 / 13:00 pm (CNA).

A prominent pro-life group is praising South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for signing a “Med Ed” bill that it says will mandate the creation of an informational video to combat “abortion misinformation.”

According to a March 25 statement by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), the South Dakota bill is the “first legislation of its kind drafted to end the confusion caused by the abortion lobby through direct education to doctors.”

Kelsey Pritchard, SBA state public affairs director, said in the statement that “though every state with a pro-life law allows pregnant women to receive emergency care, the abortion industry has sown confusion on this fact to justify their position of abortion without limits.”

“With many in the media refusing to fact-check this obvious lie, other states should look to South Dakota in combating dangerous abortion misinformation,” she said.

The bill, passed overwhelmingly by the Republican-controlled legislature, was signed into law by Noem, who is also a Republican, on Monday. Introduced by state Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, who is a nurse, the bill requires the South Dakota Department of Health to create an informational video describing the state’s abortion law and clarifying when “life-threatening or health-threatening” exceptions apply.

Now that the bill has been passed into law the Department of Health has until Sept. 1 to create the video and accompanying informational materials. The video and materials will be posted to the Department of Health’s website for doctors and the public to use as a reference in understanding the state’s abortion laws.

South Dakota is one of 14 states that prohibit abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. While some states allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and fetal anomaly, South Dakota only makes exceptions in cases where the mother’s life or health is in danger.

The ACLU of South Dakota decried the bill when it passed out of committee, saying in a Feb. 28 statement that it “gives anti-abortion activists a guise to appear to care about pregnant patients while actually passing legislation that further enshrines anti-abortion cruelty.”

Pritchard, however, said that the new informational material will help to clear up confusion on when the exception allows an abortion to take place in the state.

“Regardless of political affiliation or whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, South Dakotans of all philosophies can celebrate that moms will be better protected through direct education to our doctors on their ability to exercise reasonable medical judgment in all situations,” she said.

According to SBA, Kentucky and Oklahoma have also taken steps to clarify their abortion exceptions and the Texas Medical Board is currently considering issuing a clarification to its life of the mother exception.

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Nevada judge rules state must include abortion in its Medicaid program

March 22, 2024 Catholic News Agency 0
A participant in a Women’s March event Jan. 18, 2020, in San Francisco holds a “Pass the Equal Rights Amendment” sign while marching. / Credit: Sundry Photography/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Mar 22, 2024 / 18:30 pm (CNA).

Nevada Judge Erika Ballou ruled this week that the state must include abortion in its Medicaid program.

This ruling effectively mandates Nevada taxpayers fund abortion. It is unclear whether the state will appeal the decision.

Ballou did not give any explanation for her Tuesday ruling, only issuing a one-page order that granted a local pro-abortion group’s request to strike down the Medicaid restrictions.  

The pro-abortion group, called “Silver State Hope Fund,” which provides grants for women seeking abortions, applauded the ruling, calling it a “historic day for Nevada.”

Represented by ACLU Nevada, Silver State Hope Fund filed a suit against the state’s Health and Human Services Department in August 2023. The suit argued that the state was violating the ERA through its so-called Medicaid “coverage ban” on abortion. ACLU Nevada argued that not including abortion in Medicaid “disadvantages women because of their sex, including their reproductive capabilities.”

According to reporting by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, attorneys for the state of Nevada argued that the state has “a legitimate interest in efficiently utilizing Medicaid funds — both federal and state — to maximize the services provided to Medicaid recipients” and that “if Medicaid were to cover elective abortions, it would have to divert state money from covering other services because it cannot use federal matching dollars to pay for elective abortions.”

All funding for abortion would have to come out of the state’s budget because of the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition of federal tax dollars from being used for abortion.

ACLU attorney Rebecca Chan also celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement: “We are relieved that the court correctly recognized the severe harms of Nevada’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion, which directly violates the recently passed state Equal Rights Amendment.” 

“Every person, regardless of their income level or insurance source, deserves the power to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy, including abortion,” she said. 

The Nevada ERA, passed in a referendum vote in 2022, added a section to the Nevada Constitution that said: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.”

There is an ongoing national push to add a similar version of the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, something the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has firmly opposed. The bishops have voiced concerns that the language could be used to claim a constitutional right to an abortion or could be used to infringe on religious liberty. 

In 2023 Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement speaking out against this version of the ERA. 

“The Catholic faith teaches that women and men are created with equal dignity, and we support that being reflected in law. The proposed ‘Equal Rights Amendment,’ however, would likely create a sweeping new nationwide right to abortion at any stage, at taxpayer expense, and eliminate even modest protections for women’s health and the lives of preborn children,” he said.

Burbidge added that the measure “could also pose grave problems for women’s privacy and athletic and other opportunities, and negatively impact religious freedom.”

[…]