U.S. Supreme Court requests information on Oklahoma law limiting use of abortion drugs
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 28, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Supreme Court on Thursday asked for additional information about an Oklahoma law regulating the use of abortion drugs, indicating that they might consider overturning a lower court decision blocking enforcement of the law.
The Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act, which was struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in December, enforces FDA guidelines barring vaginal intake of abortion drug RU-486 and limiting its safe use to the first seven weeks (or 49 days) of pregnancy, starting from the woman’s last menstrual period.
It also bans off-label use of abortion drugs and requires abortionists to give women health exams before administering them, in order to confirm how far along she is into pregnancy and screen for health problems which could lead to deadly complications.
The law was passed with wide bipartisan support in the state legislature in 2011, but the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights sued to block it. In 2012, the Oklahoma court ruled that it violated the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
“The challenged measure is facially unconstitutional pursuant to Casey,” the justices wrote. “The mandate of Casey remains binding on this Court until and unless the United States Supreme Court holds to the contrary.”
The Oklahoma court said it had no choice but to “follow the mandate of the United States Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law.”
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the Court temporarily returned the case to Oklahoma, requesting additional clarification before they will agree to proceed.
The Court asked the Oklahoma court to decide whether the law “prohibits the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” The high court also wants to know if the law bars the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies.
“[F]urther proceedings in this case are reserved pending receipt of a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma,” the high court said.
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
Attorney General Pruitt praised the Court’s action. “This is an extraordinary decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the actions of Oklahoma’s Supreme Court, which has consistently misapplied federal law to strike down Oklahoma abortion laws,” Pruitt said. “This law does not ban the use of abortion-inducing drugs, but seeks to protect women from harmful off-label uses.”
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, also praised the Court for taking what she called “a first step” toward protecting women from unregulated chemical abortion.
“Chemical abortions are dangerous,” Yoest said. “We know that women have died when given such drugs in a casual and unregulated manner.”
“The health risks to women from the under-regulated practices of the abortion industry need to be front and center in our discussion of the abortion industry behavior,” Yoest added. “The Supreme Court has taken a first step toward protecting women and girls from the abortion industry’s callous disregard for their health and safety when using life-ending drugs.”
According to Yoest, the FDA has reported more than 2,200 cases of severe adverse events including hemorrhaging, blood loss requiring transfusions, serious infections, and the deaths of at least 14 women since RU-486 was approved in 2000.
“At least eight of these women died from severe bacterial infections,” said Yoest, “and in every case the woman was instructed by an abortion provider to misuse this dangerous regimen.”
The RU-486 regimen consists of two drugs. The abortion begins with the administration of mifepristone; then, approximately 48 hours, after the unborn child is dead, the mother takes the drug called misoprostol, which causes her to expel the dead child’s body. The last part usually takes place at home.
Despite FDA rules recommending RU-486 be used only within 49 days of a woman’s last menstrual period, National Abortion Federation guidelines encourage abortionists to prescribe RU-486 within 63 days of the last menstrual period – an extra two weeks beyond the FDA’s safety guidelines.
The drug is required by the FDA to be taken orally; however, a number of abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood clinics, have prescribed vaginal administration. This method has been linked to C. sordellii bacterial infections responsible for the deaths of U.S. women taking RU-486.
Rep. Randy Grau, R-Edmond, who authored the Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act, told The Washington Post that the high court’s inquiry “confirms my concern all along that the Oklahoma Supreme Court sidestepped the specific issues in this case and the purpose of the bill, which is to protect the health and safety of Oklahoma patients.”
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.