Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life protects and defends human life from conception to natural death through vigorous legislative, judicial, and educational leadership.

Abortion Pill

AUL Attorney Tells Colorado Lawmakers to Respect Women with Complete Medical Information



, , ,

“Strong informed consent requirements manifest both a trust in women and a justified concern for their welfare,” said AUL’s Denise Burke.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (02-09-17) – “Women are more than capable of making an informed choice and deserve the benefit of all available information, especially when a life is on the line,” said Americans United for Life Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke on Thursday after providing written testimony on Colorado’s HB 1086, the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act. The proposed law addresses the fact that a woman undergoing a chemical abortion through a two-drug RU-486 regimen may be able to reverse its effects and change her mind about completing the abortion, if she acts quickly. As of May 2016, 175 babies had been born and another 100 were on the way (i.e., still in utero), following the reversal process through a well-established medical regimen used in other kinds of healthcare.

In her testimony, Burke observed: “Abortion advocates frequently claim to be ‘pro-choice,’ but they only actually support the choice to have an abortion. As noted in the legislative findings of HB 1086, abortion providers sometimes fail to provide adequate and accurate information to women considering abortions.  As a result, many women are physically and psychologically harmed by the abortion process. When a woman is not given comprehensive and medically accurate information, her ‘choice’ to abort is, in reality, no choice at all.

“In 1992, in the landmark case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that informed consent laws are constitutional.  The Court found that such laws reduce ‘the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.’ The Casey Court further acknowledged that “[a]bortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences … for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision.’

“These consequences would seem especially pronounced in situations where a woman regrets her decision to use or ingest an abortion-inducing drug and later learns that she was not told that it might have been possible to reverse the effects of this drug, allowing her to continue her pregnancy and to deliver a healthy child.”

Currently, 33 states have enforceable general informed consent requirements. The majority of these laws also include reflection periods for women to consider the information that they have been given in anticipation of making a final decision as to whether or not to have an abortion. Importantly, states have also enhanced their general informed consent laws for abortion by requiring information on fetal pain, the availability of ultrasounds, perinatal hospice options for women faced with prenatal diagnoses of lethal fetal anomalies, anti-coercion counseling, and, as in HB 1086, the potential ability to reverse the effects of chemical abortions before all of the drugs in the regimen have been ingested. To date, three states have enacted laws requiring that women be given information about the potential to reverse a chemical or drug-inducing abortion.

Click here to read Burke’s complete testimony.

Click here to learn more about the health risks of abortion for women, including the dangers to women from chemical abortion, which can have more severe side effects than surgical abortion.

AUL Says News that Increased Sales of Dangerous Chemical Abortion Drugs “Bad News” for Women



, , ,

“We know that women have experienced serious complications, including death, when given dangerous chemical abortion drugs,” said AUL’s Anna Paprocki. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (11-01-16) – “Today’s reports that sales of dangerous drugs inducing chemical abortions is on the rise represents bad news for women, who face sometimes severe health risks from the abortion drugs given to women to end their unborn child’s life,” said Americans United for Life staff attorney Anna Paprocki. Wire service and other media today noted that Planned Parenthood now uses chemical abortions to end the lives of 43 percent of the unborn who do not survive a trip to the abortion mega provider, and that use of life-ending drugs is on the rise nationwide.

Paprocki observed: “Women are being sold ‘medication’ abortions as a means of convenience, but the real convenience is for the abortion industry which can make more money with less overhead especially under the recently compromised Food and Drug Administration (FDA) administration protocol.  Yet again, abortion industry profits trump women’s health and safety.

“As a result of the now lax FDA standards, the reported rise in drug-induced abortions is occurring in later gestations, and these abortions are occurring without the direct supervision of a physician.  The FDA previously prohibited both of these dangerous practices. This means that the substantially increased use of abortion drugs are happening when the risk of complications is higher and the ability to care for women is lowered.

She continued: “To help protect the health and welfare of every woman considering a drug-induced abortion, Americans United for Life is offering new model legislation for the 2017 legislative session,‘The Abortion-Inducing Drugs Information and Reporting Act.’ The AUL model ensures that women considering a drug-induced abortion receives comprehensive information on abortion-inducing drugs, including the potential to reverse the effects of the drugs should she change her mind.  The AUL model also requires reporting of relevant data on drug-induced abortions, as well as on all medical complications and maternal deaths resulting from these abortions.”

Chemical abortions can be even more dangerous for women than surgical abortions, according to research. Adverse reactions have included hemorrhaging, blood loss requiring transfusions, serious infection, and death. Abortion drugs have especially grave consequences for women who are later in pregnancy or who are experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. To learn more about the health risks of abortion for women, click here.

To read more about AUL’s newly revised model legislation designed to protect women from the abortion industry’s careless sales of abortion drugs, click here.

AUL Calls on Washington State to Repeal Discriminatory Rule Designed to Punish Pharmacists Who Respect Unborn Life



, , , ,

“Despite this missed opportunity to correct an unconstitutional abuse of power, the Washington State rule that punishes pharmacists and pharmacy owners who respect unborn life can and should be immediately repealed,” said AUL’s Clarke Forsythe. “Justice Alito is correct, when he wrote that the Court’s refusal to review this discriminatory rule is an ominous sign for religious liberty.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. (06-28-16) — The U.S. Supreme Court today declined an opportunity to hear Stormans v. Wiesman, a challenge to a 2007 Washington Board of Pharmacy rule that punishes pharmacists and pharmacy owners with religious objections to stocking drugs with known life-ending effects. “Despite this missed opportunity to correct an unconstitutional abuse of power, the Washington State rule that punishes pharmacists and pharmacy owners who respect unborn life can and should be immediately repealed,” said Clarke Forsythe, AUL Acting President and Senior Counsel.

“The rule at issue in the Stormans case is unfortunately one of many examples where abortion advocates are pushing an extreme agenda of coercion under the faulty guise of ‘choice.’  As AUL has written about extensively, Planned Parenthood’s fingerprints are all over the unnecessary and unconstitutional rule,” continued Forsythe.

He noted that Justice Samuel Alito began his dissent to the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the discriminatory rule, writing, “This case is an ominous sign.” Alito also noted:

“[T]here is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State.”

“[T]his Court does not deem this case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.”

The case “has raised more than ‘slight suspicion’ that the rules challenged here reflect antipathy toward religious beliefs that do not accord with the views of those holding the levers of government power.”

“The conscience rights of all Americans are at risk when they can be ignored by those who do not share the same opinion,” observed Forsythe.

AUL has a long history of involvement in this case.  On an earlier appeal of this case to the Ninth Circuit, AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Washington legislators in support of pro-life pharmacists. On a later second appeal, AUL filed a similar amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress.

In January, Americans United for Life joined a medical amicus curie (friend of the court brief) as co-counsel in an effort headed by the Bioethics Defense Fund (BDF) and lead attorney Dorinda Bordlee to defend the First Amendment freedom of conscience of pharmacists.  The brief demonstrates that conscience objections to drugs misleadingly called “emergency contraceptives,” specifically Plan B and ella, are consistent with objective science showing that the drugs have the capacity to end the life of an unique human being. The brief was filed on behalf of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International.

To read more about the anti-conscience campaign orchestrated by Planned Parenthood visit AUL’s Planned Parenthood Exhibits.

AUL Will Continue Fight to Protect Conscience as Supreme Court Returns Challenges Brought By Religious Nonprofits to Lower Courts



, , , , ,

“Today’s decision implicitly recognizes that the Obama Administration does not need to violate the First Amendment and hijack the health insurance plans of pro-life Americans to push life-ending drugs,”
said Clarke D. Forsythe, Acting President and Senior Counsel of Americans United for Life.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (05-16-16) In a three-page per curium opinion issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded Zubik v. Burwell and multiple other challenges by religious non-profits to the coercive HHS Mandate.  While the Court explained that it was not deciding the merits of the cases, including whether the government even has a “compelling interest” for the Mandate, it acknowledged that the federal government has finally conceded it has other options besides its current scheme that hijacks the healthcare plans of nuns and priests.  Americans United for Life Acting President and Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe noted, “The Obama Administration does not need to violate the First Amendment and hijack the health insurance plans of pro-life Americans to push life-ending drugs. It is disgraceful that the Administration has spent years trying to bully the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, and the other plaintiffs in these cases, to force compliance with an anti-life agenda. Under the directives of the Supreme Court’s decision today, the lower courts should put a stop to this unconstitutional and unconscionable scheme.”

In support of the Little Sisters of the Poor and the other religious non-profits, AUL filed our 29th amicus brief against the coercive HHS Mandate, which requires most insurance plans to provide coverage for life-ending drugs and devices.  In its brief, available here, AUL demonstrates that pro-life Americans are correct in objecting to the life-ending drugs included in the Mandate, detailing how the life of a new human being begins at fertilization (conception), that so-called “emergency contraception” has post-fertilization effects that can prevent a new, developing human being from implanting in the uterus and thus ending his or her young life, and that forcing the religious employers such as Little Sisters of the Poor and Priests for Life to facilitate and provide coverage for such drugs violates their First Amendment freedoms.

AUL’s brief was filed on behalf of Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, National Association of Catholic Nurses, and The National Catholic Bioethics Center.

“Before Obamacare became law, AUL warned that the conscience rights of pro-life Americans were at risk from the proposed mandates. In fact, AUL testified multiple times about the violations of conscience and religious liberty that would result. Sadly, these cases are evidence of the Administration’s determination to manufacture a fundamental break with our nation’s longstanding tradition of respecting faith and religious beliefs. We are grateful for all of our friends and allies who have stood side-by-side with us in this over six-year battle to protect our cherished freedoms, and we will redouble these efforts as these cases return to the lower courts,” said AUL Staff Counsel Anna Paprocki.

Abortion is woven into the healthcare law at multiple levels, making repeal of the law a pro-life necessity, including:

·      Failing to prohibit the use of federal tax dollars for abortion, abortion coverage, and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.

·      Pretending that the Hyde Amendment protections were enough to prohibit direct payment for abortions.

·      Permitting federally subsidized Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) to provide abortion coverage through the state insurance exchanges required in all 50 states.

·      Failing to prohibit all multi-state qualified health plans from providing coverage for abortion.

·      Including a “preventive care” mandate that is being used in an attempt to force coverage of drugs and devices known to end life.

·      Failing to provide comprehensive First Amendment conscience protections for individuals, employers, and insurance companies that have religious or moral objections to abortion.

To learn more about life-affirming healthcare, go to AUL’s unique project, RealHealthcareRespectsLife.com

AUL Celebrates New Arkansas Law Designed to Protect Women from Misuse of Life-Ending Drugs



, , ,

WASHINGTON, D.C. (03-23-15) – As an Americans United for Life model-based bill became law, AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest called the efforts of the Arkansas House and Senate, along with Governor Asa Hutchison, on behalf of Arkansas HB 1394, the Abortion Inducing Drugs Safety Act, “the kind of proactive, pro-life effort that saves lives. We know that women have died when given life-ending drugs recklessly, and in ways not recommended by the FDA. But the abortion industry consistently puts profits over people. Arkansas’ political leadership showed that women’s lives matter more than abortion industry convenience.”

The new bi-partisan law, signed by Gov. Hutchison, was based on AUL model legislation, and sponsored by Arkansas State Rep. Charlene Fite. “Americans United for Life thanks Rep. Fite as well as State Senator Jake File, Gov. Hutchinson and the Family Council in Arkansas for their partnership and leadership on this important piece of legislation,” said Dr. Yoest.

The law will require that life-ending drugs be distributed as outlined by the FDA, which means that a woman must be examined to determine how far she is in pregnancy or whether she is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, and that she be monitored in case of life-threatening complications. The FDA has reported that, since the Mifeprex regimen more commonly known as RU-486 was approved in September 2000, more than 2,200 cases of severe adverse events including hemorrhaging, blood loss requiring transfusions, serious infections, and at least 14 women’s deaths have occurred. At least 8 of these women died from severe bacterial infections, and in every case the woman was instructed by an abortion provider to misuse this dangerous regimen.

For more on the health risks of abortion for women, click here.

AUL files 25th brief supporting Americans’ First Amendment Conscience Rights against Obamacare’s Draconian Anti-Life Mandates



, , , , ,

“Our government should not punish citizens who have a conscientious objection
to Obamacare’s anti-life agenda,” said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (01-15-15) – Americans United for Life’s filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief today with the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell. This is AUL’s 25th brief demonstrating that the coercive, unconstitutional effects of Obamacare’s anti-life mandates force non-profit religious employers to facilitate coverage for life-ending drugs and devices in violation of their moral and religious beliefs.

“Despite the scientific evidence that some drugs and devices, deceptively labeled as ‘contraception,’ do in fact end unborn life, the Obama Administration continues to use the coercive power of government to compel their purchase,” said AUL’s CEO and President Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “Forcing a non-profit religious organization to choose between following its beliefs or facing ruinous fines is unconstitutional and un-American. Our government should not punish citizens who have a conscientious objection to Obamacare’s anti-life agenda.”

Claiming to “accommodate” religious employers, the Obama Administration announced in an August 2014 regulation that those with religious beliefs opposed to facilitating and paying for life-ending drugs and devices must hand over to the federal government the name and contact information “for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made clear that it will use that information to force the religious employer’s insurance provider to include the objected-to items and services.

In this case, Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell, the trial court denied the religious organization’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have protected the organization from the coercive anti-life Mandate while appeals continue. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court in June, Michigan Catholic Conference appealed to the Supreme Court.

In its brief, available here, AUL demonstrates that the life of a new human being begins at fertilization (conception), that some drugs and devices labeled as so-called “emergency contraception” have post-fertilization effects that can prevent a new, developing human being from implanting in the uterus and thus ending his or her young life. The brief also demonstrates that forcing employers to provide coverage for such drugs violates constitutionally protected freedom of conscience.

In the brief, Americans United for Life represents the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, Alabama Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, and National Association of Catholic Nurses.

Abortion and anti-life policies are woven into the healthcare law at multiple levels, making repeal of the law a pro-life necessity, including:

  • Failing to prohibit the use of federal tax dollars for abortion, abortion coverage, and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.
  • Pretending that the Hyde Amendment protections were enough to prohibit direct payment for abortions.
  • Permitting federally subsidized Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) to provide abortion coverage through the state insurance exchanges required in all 50 states.
  • Failing to prohibit all multi-state qualified health plans from providing coverage for abortion.
  • Including a “preventive care” mandate that is being used to force coverage of drugs and devices known to end life.
  • Failing to provide comprehensive First Amendment conscience protections for individuals, employers, and insurance companies that have religious or moral objections to abortion.

To learn more about Real Healthcare that Respects Life, click here.