Fund Texas Choice’s Post

Great read in Governing today on the fight over abortion access in Montana which is likely to play out at the ballot box and in the courts. Background: In the largely conservative and rural region between Minnesota and the Pacific Northwest, Montana is the most abortion friendly state due to a 25-year-old state Supreme Court ruling that protected it under the right to privacy included in the state’s constitution. To outlaw abortion, voters would need to amend the state constitution or elect Supreme Court justices willing to reverse precedent. What's Happening Now: A legal battle is taking place over a proposed ballot initiative that would add abortion protections to the state constitution. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen declared the initiative legally insufficient to be placed on the ballot and supporters of the measure have filed a lawsuit. The State Supreme Court will decide if the organizers of the ballot initiative campaign may proceed with signature gathering. And two open State Supreme Court seats will be decided at the November election which could determine if the previous rulings protecting abortion access are upheld.

The question of LIFE or ABORTION will be major issues in upcoming elections. Donald Trump (who is personally pro-life) has just declared that abortion should be the decision of the States, and not the Federal government. As a result, he has taken flak from all sides. https://lnkd.in/gjQRBcTp I tend to agree with his position, even though I am also unapologetically pro-life myself. Here's why. In the past, we have tried to decide a few issues via top-down mandates, with some really bad results. Slavery and prohibition were decided, but at the cost of lives and freedoms. It took a Civil War and countless deaths and casualties to outlaw slavery. And prohibition created a black market, Al Capone's murderous crime syndicate and widespread disobedience of the law, and it was repealed. I believe that the question of LIFE must first be an issue of hearts and minds. While laws can be passed to limit, outlaw or criminalize elective clinical abortion, many will disagree and disobey. Laws do not change hearts nor create compliance. Our American system of #Federalism is mode of political organization that unites separate States within an overarching political system that allows each to maintain its own integrity. In other words, the 50 States are an 'R&D lab' where diverse people can try things that either succeed or fail, via elections, according to their unique needs and cultures. If enough people in enough States find an idea (like LIFE or ABORTION) to be good, fair and workable, it can be adopted at the Federal level. Or not. Only time will tell. HERE'S MY POINT. I would love and support a system where ALL unborn children and their mothers are shown kindness and compassion; given hope, supported, loved, protected, educated and trained in self-sufficiency. And I would support a major portion of Federal abortion funding being re-allocated to this purpose. BTW - if you are reading this, you were conceived, became a fetus, then an unborn child, and after a period of pregnancy inside of your mother, you were given the opportunity of life by your mother. I'm glad that happened, and hope you will consider others - both born and unborn - just as valuable as you are.

Citizens are initiating state constitutional amendments to protect or ban abortion across the United States. Our new brief examines citizen-initiated abortion ballot initiatives in progress in nine states and legislatively referred abortion initiatives in four states ahead of the 2024 elections. While these ballot measures put abortion rights directly before the voters, it is not an option in every state. In fact, 15 states lack a pathway for citizens to place these amendments on the ballot because they currently have abortion bans or early gestational limits on the books. In those states, the legislature controls the process.  Still, in most of the states where this is an option, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are seeking to use abortion-related constitutional amendment as a powerful tool to address the legality of abortion in their state. Since the SCOTUS Dobbs decision in 2022, six states have voted on abortion related constitutional amendments.

Abortion bans and restrictions limit women's participation in the workforce, according to a new analysis that quantifies the negative impacts on state economies. #SouthDakota saw an average loss in #GDP of nearly 1% per year between 2021 and 2023, due to a drop in labor force participation by people who became pregnant and didn't have access to abortion care, according to data from the Institute for Women's Policy Research. That adds up to nearly $641 million in economic losses to the state. Dr. Jamila Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said the 16 states with abortion bans or extreme restrictions, including South Dakota, are costing the national economy $68 billion annually. "Not only do these restrictions and bans have a clear impact on the health and well being of people with the ability to get pregnant, they also have an impact on their productivity and their economic position in life," Taylor said. Taylor added abortion access not only helps family finances, but also allows women ages 15 to 44 to engage more broadly in society -- in local communities or politics, for example. Despite restrictions, abortion numbers are rising. The first full calendar year after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade saw an 11% increase in abortions since 2020 - or over one million abortions in the formal health care system in 2023, according to The Guttmacher Institute. If voters pass South Dakota's constitutional Amendment G in November, it will enshrine protections to abortion. Hannah Haksgaard, University of South Dakota law professor, said even if it passes, people seeking an in-state abortion would likely see a lag time before services become available. "There would still likely be state legislation that would try to restrict abortion in certain ways, and then the question would become whether those restrictions violated the new constitutional amendment," she said. Haksgaard added that could make providers move slowly on offering abortion services in the state, until the legal issues are settled.

Proud of my former org Arizona Right to Life for leading this lawsuit against the radical 9-month pro-abortion Prop. 139. Attorneys Jennifer Wright and Tim LaSota laid out the arguments - their petition signature gatherers were caught on video MANY times flat out lying about Prop. 139. Some of them said all abortion was currently illegal in Arizona, even to save the life of the mother (abortion is illegal after 15 weeks except for rare circumstances like that). Most of them said Prop. 139 would only legalize abortion for up to 15 weeks or slightly more. One said that women must currently go to Mexico to get abortions. 🤡🤡🤡🤡 And the summary on the petitions was so incredibly misleading that AZRTL is asking to get it kicked off the ballot. Would all those voters have signed the petition if they knew it made our laws as radical as California's, legalizing partial-birth abortion? “The Ballot Measure Proponents have a right to advocate for unregulatable right to abortion in the State of Arizona. However, that right does not include the ability to draft an Amendment and a misleading 200-word description of purported principal provisions because they do not want to tell would-be signers that the Amendment codifies an absolute right for anyone of any age to obtain an abortion on demand, up to natural birth. … The Amendment purports to create a qualified right to abortion when in reality, it provides unfettered access to abortion with illusory limitations.” There is significant case law that says they can't do this. The Arizona Supreme Court is receiving arguments this week so a decision should come soon. https://lnkd.in/gR_uTzKg

My latest (free to read!) for Bloomberg Law: The #Florida Supreme Court’s ruling that officially put an #abortion rights measure on the November ballot is being celebrated by advocates of the national effort to put the issue before voters in nearly a dozen other states. Florida’s high court on Monday rejected the state attorney general’s challenge to Amendment 4, which would prohibit state restrictions on abortion before fetal viability—roughly 24 weeks of gestation—or when an abortion is “necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Florida joins #Maryland and #New York with proposed abortion rights constitutional amendments certified for the 2024 general election ballot. The issue could come before voters in as many as 11 additional states. Amid a patchwork of state laws restricting abortion access after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, advocacy groups across the political spectrum view the 2024 election as important for shaping the future of US abortion access. More here: https://lnkd.in/eX8deMyg

What can the Pro-Life Movement learn from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)? As it turns out, many things. But there’s one thing that really intrigues me given that we are in an election year, and there is much talk about new pro-life legislative initiatives. As I looked through the history section of MADD’s website, in the year 2008 the Newseum’s First Amendment Gallery included MADD as the lead example of petitioning the government to change legislation to protect victims. So how does that relate to the Pro-Life Movement? Hasn’t the movement been petitioning the government to change legislation to protect victims ever since the time Roe v Wade first became a law? We sure have! But interestingly, the vast majority of that legislation has focused on the preborn baby as the victim that needs legal protection, and not on the mother as the victim. Of course, it is entirely correct that the preborn baby is a tragic victim of abortion. However, it is important to note, and obvious, that the preborn baby is not the decision maker about whether or not a woman will get an abortion. The preborn baby’s mother makes that decision. So my thought is, would it not be more effective in terms of helping more women choose life if we petitioned the government to change legislation in a way that focused on the woman? What I would really like to see is legislation that forces the Abortion Industry Complex (AIC) to tell the truth to women. Imagine state and/or national legislation that requires abortion providers to give every abortion-seeking woman medically accurate information about abortion and also about carrying a pregnancy to term, along with information about emotional and financial support available to her if she chooses to carry her pregnancy to term. The fact that the Abortion Industry Complex withholds information and support from women resulting in 6 out of 10 of those women making a choice they didn’t want to make – abortion – proves that Planned Parenthood and all the other organizations directly involved in or supporting the Abortion Industry Complex in any way, are victimizing women. Don’t we want laws that prevent organizations from victimizing women? I believe all we need is legislation that requires ALL organizations that call themselves women’s healthcare providers to tell women the TRUTH. Please click on the article below to read more of my thoughts on this. https://lnkd.in/gu6JQb_9

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 18, 2024 / Biden/Harris Talking Points - J.D. Vance Called on the DOJ to Ban Abortion Nationwide Using the Comstock Act. He and Trump Will Do Exactly That. Washington Post: Vance urged DOJ to enforce Comstock Act, crack down on abortion medication Much has been picked apart about J.D. Vance’s extreme, unpopular record on abortion in the last 48 hours. First, Vance’s comments doubling down on abortion bans with no exceptions for rape or incest were exposed. Then, a CNN report revealed that Vance declared his unwavering support for a national abortion ban. It’s no surprise that Vance went so far as to delete the page on his website dedicated to his anti-abortion views (don’t worry, we saved it for you). Vance’s attempts to paper over his record won’t stop voters from learning the truth about his and Trump’s Project 2025 agenda. A new report in the Washington Post laid out that Vance called on the Department of Justice to use the Comstock Act to ban abortion nationwide without Congress. It’s exactly the path Trump’s Project 2025 allies say that Trump will take to ban abortion nationwide if he wins a second term – now, it’s clear that his vice presidential nominee has already called for it. In an 5-page letter to President Biden’s DOJ, Vance and his MAGA Republican allies slammed the Biden-Harris administration for refusing to use the 150-year old, dormant Comstock Act to wipe out access to medication abortion nationwide. Vance and his colleagues called on the Biden administration to rescind its policy immediately and begin enforcing Comstock, including prosecuting and jailing those who mail medication abortion. In their letter, Vance and his co-authors go out of their way to make it clear that they believe the next administration has the power to ban abortion nationwide using the Comstock Act, and that the Biden-Harris administration’s stance “has no official or binding legal effect on Federal courts or future administrations.” Read key excerpts of Vance and his colleagues’ letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland below and the full letter here: ###

Are we witnessing the fall of US democracy? It develops in the direction of misogynist teocracies like Iran. And the supreme court that is supposed to protect the US constitution is responsible. The first thing Harris has to do in January 2025 is to restore abortion rights and reduce the power of the supreme court. "Since Roe v Wade was overturned by the US supreme court in 2022, 14 states have passed near-total abortion bans. Ten of those states, including Texas, have no rotexceptions for survivors of rape or incest. A study published earlier this year estimated that 65,000 rape-related pregnancies probably occurred in states with abortion bans since Roe fell. While there are no studies on the numbers of rape-related pregnancies in minors since Roe was overturned, young people in states with abortion bans face unique barriers, according to doctors and advocates who spoke with the Guardian. “States that ban abortions, both with and without rape exceptions, do not have carve-outs for minors,” Dr Samuel Dickman, one of the authors of the study on rape-related pregnancies since Roe fell, said via email. “Many states where abortion care remains legal impose burdensome additional restrictions on abortion access for minors, such as parental consent or notification laws. And of course, the logistical and financial burdens on people trying to get abortions out of state are often worse for minors, who may not have access to transportation or the funds needed to travel and pay for abortion services.”"

The potential revival of the Comstock Act poses an important legal question in the context of recent state constitutional amendments: how can/should an 1800’s morality law be enforced in conjunction with modern constitutional reform enshrining the right to abortion?