top of page
Search

Democrats Lose Battle To Kill Babies

We join our friend Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association and other pro-life advocates in celebrating the United States Supreme Court’s life-giving decision that will potentially save thousands of unborn babies in Texas.

The law, SB8, was passed by the Texas legislature and signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott on May 19.


Advocates for killing babies had filed an emergency appeal asking the Court to block enforcement of the law that went into effect yesterday. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberal members of the Court to keep abortions going in Texas.


However, by a 5-4 vote, the Court said a new Texas law prohibiting abortions once a medical professional detects a heartbeat will stand for now.


This is a huge day for the pro-life movement, and we join Tim in asking you to thank God for this wonderful victory.


Martin Walsh, writing for Conservative Brief, noted nearly two dozen abortion providers were looking to block the law from going into effect.


The providers filed an emergency motion asking the appeals court to issue a temporary stay or send the matter back to a lower court.


The 5th Circuit Court, which is arguably one of the most conservative in the country, denied the request, reported Mr. Walsh.


Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito voted in the majority to uphold the Texas abortion restriction.


However, the Supreme Court majority cited “complex and novel” procedural questions for its decision and emphasized that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law.


As Mr. Walsh explained, the law was done in a clever way, where no government official was charged with enforcing the law but providing private citizens the right to sue abortion providers who perform abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.


Because of that, there is no one for abortion rights activists to sue as they normally would.


“It’s a very unique law and it’s a very clever law,” Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law Houston professor, said. “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”


“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” he said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”


Pro-life organizations such as Texas Alliance for Life welcomed the Texas Heartbeat Act and the Supreme Court’s decision, reported Katabella Roberts of The Epoch Times.


“We celebrate the lives of unborn children who will be protected from abortion as a result,” said Dr. Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life in a statement.


“Hundreds of pregnancy centers and maternity homes throughout Texas are expanding their capacity and resources to meet the needs of women facing unplanned pregnancies who may seek their support,” he said.


“Also, the State of Texas has increased funding for the highly successful Alternatives to Abortion program to $100 million for the biennium to provide services to 150,000 clients per year.”


Another pro-life group, Texas Right to Life, said in a tweet that the Supreme Court’s decision was “a huge victory for the pro-life movement,” one they hoped would be replicated “across the nation.”


We also hope and pray this Supreme Court decision will be replicated across the nation and, most importantly, that it will stand as a final ruling in favor of life for millions of yet-to-be-born children.


  • SB 8

  • Texas law

  • U.S. Supreme Court

  • abortion

  • pro-life

  • Gov. Gregg Abbott

  • Chief Justice John Roberts

  • Fetal Heartbeat laws

  • Planned Parenthood

  • Attorney General Ken Paxton

178 views3 comments

3 Comments


Why does it seem like 'choices' exist only AFTER a pregnancy? What happened to all of the available 'choices' BEFORE a pregnancy? Too inconvenient? Too entitled to be denied?

Once the fetus is birthed and no longer within the woman, why the inane banshee rallying cry, 'her body, her choice?' Her claim, 'her choice' is no longer valid. If the woman cared so little for the fetus that she wanted it aborted when it was inside her, why should she care what happens to it when out?

Wouldn't be easier to prevent a birth than to terminate one? And we ridicule China for regulating their birth rate? Talk about white supremacists! Pelosi.

Like

This is a very clever way to keep abortion advocates tied up in countless court proceedings. The Democrats are good at this sort of thing. Now the tables are being turned. It's called fighting fire with fire.

Like

van.snyder
van.snyder
Sep 03, 2021

Roe v. Wade was cut from the same cloth as Dred Scott v. Sanford. "My body! My choice!" is a synonym for "it's moral and legal for one person to be the property of another." Dred Scott was returned to Sanford not because he was a slave, but because he was Sanford's property.


The only thing that appears twice in the Constitution is "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."


Even when slavery was legal, it was illegal to murder a slave. Not so an unborn child.


The central question for abortion is "when does an unborn child stop being property and become a person entitled to the protections of the Constitution?"


Like
bottom of page