News
Featured Image
"Defend Life" signs are stacked and given away free to March for Life participants.Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

(LifeSiteNews) — A federal judge reluctantly voted to block several pro-life laws, but urged the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade that imposed abortion on all 50 states.

Judge Amul Thapar said in a September 10 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that as a lower court judge he was “bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions” to strike down Tennessee’s Heartbeat Act. At the same time, he said it is time for Roe to be reversed.

President Donald Trump had nominated Thapar to the Court of Appeals in 2017 and had placed him on his shortlist for a Supreme Court nomination.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Tell University of Pittsburgh to stop barbaric experiments using human babies
  Show Petition Text
7799 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 9000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

CAUTION: Some material below is by its nature disturbing and graphic.

The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) is involved in barbaric experimentation using aborted baby body parts which are, by the university's own admission, obtained by their abortionist partners, Planned Parenthood, from babies who are still alive when the organs are "harvested."

What happens at Pitt after the aborted baby body parts are obtained is equally as gruesome. Just this May, it was revealed that in one experiment, Pitt was grafting aborted baby scalps onto lab rats to see if baby hair would continue to grow.

This depraved butchery must stop!

SIGN and SHARE this petition which calls on the Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh and the Board of Trustees to call an immediate halt to this appalling experimentation using preborn human beings.

Of course, all abortion is barbaric and wrong, but this is downright ghoulish!

But, to make matters even worse, some of this experimentation is paid for, in part, by your taxpayer dollars, in the form of NIH grants. And believe it or not, some of the grants even specify racial quotas of aborted baby parts for this grisly butchery.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to the University of Pittsburgh Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, and to the Pitt Board of Trustees demanding that they put a stop to this ghastly experimentation.

At the same time, we will also CC this petition to the leadership of Pennsylvania State Legislature, urging them to do everything they can, including defunding (to the extent possible) any university departments involved in experimentation on aborted babies.

NB: You do not need to be from Pennsylvania to sign and share this petition. The University of Pittsburgh is a national leader in medical research and in receipt of millions of dollars in federal tax dollars, thereby necessitating a huge response from pro-lifers around the country!

After signing the petition, you might consider contacting the Pitt Board of Trustees directly to politely, but firmly, tell them to put a stop to this kind of barbarism masquerading as "scientific" inquiry.

The Board's direct phone number: 412-624-6623

The Board's email: [email protected]

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'University of Pittsburgh’s organ harvesting practices include racial quotas for minority babies' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/university-of-pittsburghs-organ-harvesting-practices-include-racial-quotas-for-minority-babies/

WATCH CMP's YouTube video: 'Government-Sponsored Fetal Experimentation at the University of Pittsburgh and Planned Parenthood'

Photo Credit: CMP YouTube / screenshot

  Hide Petition Text

Roe and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] are wrong as a matter of constitutional text, structure, and history,” Thapar wrote in his partial dissent. He criticized Roe for creating a separate approach to law than what is generally recognized by the courts.

There are rules for most cases, and then there are rules for abortion cases. This case proves the point,” Thapar said. Under Roe, Thapar argued, lower federal courts had to overturn laws passed by individual states.

By manufacturing a right to abortion, Roe and Casey have denied the American people a voice on an important political issue,” Thapar argued. He said that the two main judicial philosophies, originalism and the living Constitution approach, should both lead to a reversal of Roe.

The Roe/Casey framework doesn’t just conflict with the original understanding of the Constitution — it cannot be justified under any modern approach to constitutional interpretation,” Thapar said. “Even living constitutionalism, taken seriously, permits Tennessee’s (and many other states’) efforts to combat fetal pain. After all, the living constitution theory considers evolving standards of decency.”

He noted that states have passed restrictions on abortions, polling has shown support for abortion limits, and the United States joins just seven other countries in allowing abortions past 20 weeks.

The rest of the dissent further explores the false data and assertions made by NARAL in order to get the Court to overturn abortion restrictions in 1973.

The Court will have an opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade in the new term, when it will take up Jackson Women’s Health Org v. Hobbs.

A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upheld the 15-week abortion restriction. One federal judge similarly said he had to uphold the law because of Roe but urged the reversal of abortion precedents.

The opinion issued by the district court displays an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth,” Judge James Ho, a Trump-appointee, wrote in December 2019. He said his colleagues disregarded the views of Americans who believe “abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life.”

Because Casey establishes viability as the governing constitutional standard, I am duty bound to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in forbidding discovery and fact development on the issue of pain,” Ho said. “But neither would it have been an abuse of discretion if the district court had permitted discovery and fact development on the issue of pain.”

Pro-life politicians, legal observers praise Thapar’s analysis

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has said he would not vote to confirm any judges who support Roe, praised Thapar’s dissent.

Students of the law — and anyone who cares about the Constitution — should read Judge Amul Thapar’s dissent today,” he tweeted. “He explains in unanswerable detail why abortion is not a constitutional ‘right’ — and why courts’ efforts to overrule the people’s voice are wrong.”

For those wondering what a decision overturning Roe can and should look like, see Judge Amul Thapar’s separate opinion … Thapar’s a legal rock star that should be on SCOTUS,” President Trump’s former Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights director Roger Severino said.

Abortion supporters criticized Thapar’s dissent.

Pro-abortion Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern said Thapar repeated “anti-abortion rhetoric.”

Trump Judge Amul Thapar also adopts the anti-abortion rhetoric about pro-choice judges worshiping at the ‘altar of abortion,’” Stern wrote, “which I find extremely offensive but whatever. These guys get to say whatever they want.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.