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.

Clinic Regulation

AUL Team of Experts Available to Discuss Health and Safety Standards Being Debated in Texas Abortion Case as Supreme Court Prepares to Announce Decision



, , ,

What’s At Stake: States’ Ability to Protect Health and Safety of Women in Abortion Clinics from Dangerous Conditions and Practitioners

 “Consistently, the abortion industry invests in lawyers to avoid investing in safeguards designed to protect women from dangerous conditions and substandard providers found behind the closed doors of abortion clinics,” said AUL’s Clarke Forsythe.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (06-08-16) – Americans United for Life, the nation’s leading advocate for protecting women’s health through commonsense legislation, has been front and center in the case before the Supreme Court, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (formerlyWhole Woman’s Health v. Cole).  Authors of a significant body of model legislation, AUL attorneys were advocates for the pro-life requirements enacted in Texas in 2013, now in court as a result of abortion industry objections to complying with the laws that protect women in other healthcare settings. AUL also filed an amicus curie (friend of the court) brief, along with co-counsel the Bioethics Defense Fund, representing more than 460 Republicans and Democrats legislators from across the nation and demonstrating to the Court that state efforts to protect women through reasonable health and safety standards must be upheld for reasons of common sense and medical reality. “While court watchers wait to learn how the eight current justices view Texas’ efforts to protect women, it’s important to remember that even the most pro-abortion justices have always viewed women’s safety as something that the states can act to protect,” noted AUL Acting President and Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe, author of the premier book on the history of Roe v. Wade, Abuse of Discretion.

He continued: “To rule in favor of women’s health and safety, the justices will simply have to remember what was decided more than 40 years ago in Roe: a state’s legitimate interest in regulating abortion ‘obviously extends at least to [regulating] the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that may arise.’”

Legal scholars also note that in both Gonzales v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court affirmed Roe v. Wade’s “essential” holding, which explicitly included not only the woman’s “right” to “choose to have an abortion” without “undue interference from the State,” but also “the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman….” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 145; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (both citing Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113).  In fact, Roe “was express in its recognition of the State’s ‘important and legitimate interests in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman….’” Casey, 505 U.S. at 875-76.

 

AUL Experts available for interviews on the issues at stake in the Texas case:

AUL Acting President and CEO Clarke Forsythe, foremost legal expert on abortion law, author of Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, published by Encounter Books in 2013. His 27 years of service to AUL includes founding and directing the AUL Project in Law & Bioethics and arguing cases before federal and state courts as well as testifying before Congress and state legislatures.

AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke, editor of Defending Life, author of much of AUL’s life-affirming legislation including abortion provider health and safety standards, and co-signer of AUL’s amicus brief filed in the Texas case.

AUL attorney Anna Paprocki, contributing author to  Defending Life, co-author of AUL’s Constitutional Law and Abortion primer for law school students, and a leading expert on Planned Parenthood’s predatory corporate practices.

The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, involves Texas House Bill 2, a measure enacted in 2013 with a number of life-affirming provisions.  Placing profit above women’s health, abortion providers challenged provisions requiring them to meet the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), as well as to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.  In June 2015, the Fifth Circuit upheld the provisions, and abortion providers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in their continued effort to avoid compliance with these commonsense requirements.

AUL has been active in this case since its inception.  In addition to providing expert consultation on the constitutionality of HB 2 before and after it was enacted, AUL filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit on behalf of Texas Legislators.

AUL’s Supreme Court brief, available here, was filed on behalf of more than 460 legislators from states with provisions similar to the Texas health and safety standards.  The brief demonstrates that the Supreme Court has promised “wide discretion” to state lawmakers in the regulation of abortion and has given significant deference to legislative determinations as to the medical necessity for enacting health and safety regulations.

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

AUL Files Briefs Supporting Texas and Mississippi Abortion Laws



, , , ,

Americans United for Life (AUL) filed briefs today in two important abortion cases now before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Each case involves recently enacted laws designed to protect women from the dangers inherent in America’s largely unregulated, unrestricted, and unrepentant abortion industry.

Texas case:  Planned Parenthood v. Abbott

AUL filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, a legal challenge launched by the nation’s largest abortion provider against commonsense abortion regulations enacted in Texas this past summer following a Special Legislative session.  House Bill (HB) 2 included a ban on abortions after five months of pregnancy, requirements that abortion clinics meet the same patient care standards as other facilities performing outpatient surgeries, a mandate that abortion providers have hospital admitting privileges, and restrictions on the administration of abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood is only challenging the admitting privileges requirement and the new regulation governing the provision of abortion-inducing drugs.  The regulation on abortion-inducing drugs (or chemical abortions) requires abortion providers to examine a woman before dispensing the drugs and mandates that the drugs be administered only in the way approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  These protective requirements were based, in part, on AUL model legislation, the Abortion-Inducing Drugs Safety Act.

Earlier this fall, a federal district court in Austin ruled that the regulation on abortion-inducing drugs did not pose an “undue burden” for most women, but noted that it might pose a hardship for some women with certain medical conditions.  To that end, the court improperly imposed a “health” exception on the regulation, which means that any abortion provider can refuse to follow the requirements as long as he or she claims the noncompliance is in the broad “health” interest of the woman.

In response, Texas filed an emergency appeal in the Fifth Circuit, which immediately stayed the district court’s overly broad injunction and allowed the regulation to go into effect.  Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an application by Planned Parenthood to stay both the admitting privileges requirement and the abortion-inducing drugs regulation while litigation continues.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case is a significant bellweather for the future of chemical abortion regulations.  If its decision allowing the provision to go into effect is any indication of its decision on the merits of the case, the Fifth Circuit is likely to uphold the Texas law.  This means that two federal appellate courts—the Fifth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit—will have upheld state regulations of chemical abortions, providing greater authority and support to other states seeking to protect women from the harms of this dangerous practice.   On the other hand, two state courts—the Oklahoma Supreme Court and a trial court in North Dakota—have invalidated similar laws, and such a “court split” makes it even more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the constitutionality and viability of regulations on abortion-inducing drugs.

AUL’s brief demonstrates that U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports regulating abortion-inducing drugs and that medical data—including the FDA’s intent to restrict use of abortion-inducing drugs and the risks inherent in chemical abortions—support Texas’ regulation.

Mississippi case:  Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier

AUL filed a second amicus brief in Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier, a challenge to a 2012 Mississippi law requiring any abortion provider who performs 10 or more abortions per month to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.  Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state’s only abortion clinic, has challenged the law.

A federal district court in Jackson initially granted in part, and denied in part, the clinic’s motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law.  The court initially allowed the law to take effect, requiring the clinic’s providers to seek admitting privileges within the time the law allotted for them to do so, but also enjoined state officials from imposing any criminal or civil penalties for the continued operation of the clinic while the required privileges were being sought.  Since then, providers at the Jackson clinic have been denied admitting privileges by all local hospitals.  In light of this development, the district court subsequently enjoined the law as an “undue burden” because it would certainly mean the closure the clinic.

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the State’s legitimate interest in regulating abortion to protect maternal health “obviously extends at least to [regulating] the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that may arise.” However, the district court’s analysis, elevating in-state “access” to an abortion clinic over the long-recognized State interest in protecting maternal health, virtually immunizes abortion clinics from medically appropriate and commonsense regulation if their failure to comply would close their doors.

In the over 40 years since Roe v. Wade was decided, there have been innumerable examples of substandard care and conditions in the nation’s “legal” abortion clinics, demonstrating that state regulation and oversight of abortion clinics and abortion providers is absolutely necessary.  The trial of now-convicted murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell brought attention to the tragic impact that the “legal” abortion industry has had on women’s health.  However, Gosnell’s clinic was not an aberration. In fact, since 2009, abortion providers in at least 29 states have faced investigations and/or have been cited for violating state laws governing the provision of abortions.

AUL’s brief argues that the district court’s analysis should be rejected as contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  Specifically, the court improperly dismissed the State of Mississippi’s legitimate interest in regulating abortion to protect maternal health and created a new “right” for abortion clinics to a perpetually unregulated existence – an existence with obviously dangerous consequences for women’s health.

AUL Calls Gosnell Murder Conviction “a triumph of justice over the reality of infanticide – the logical conclusion of the abortion worldview”



, ,

“In the Gosnell case, we’ve seen proof positive that the abortion industry operates as the red-light district of medicine, preying on the vulnerable and repeatedly victimizing the very women it claims to protect,”
said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (05-13-13) — “The self-interested indifference of an unrepentant, unregulated, and unmonitored abortion industry stood front and center among the tragic events that led to the conviction of Kermit Gosnell,” said Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “The legacy of Gosnell’s trial will be Big Abortion’s collusion in bringing about America’s ‘red-light district of medicine” – today’s back-alley abortion clinics and renegade abortion profiteers. Consistently pro-life Americans must fight Big Abortion as they attempt to block commonsense attempts to regulate and monitor abortion clinics where we know that some women and girls have suffered and even died. I applaud the vedict and thank all those who worked so hard to bring Gosnell to justice. We must now protect women and infants from an abortion industry that steadfastly refuses to police itself. How many women, girls, and infants must die before the abortion industry is held accountable?”

“Both the National Abortion Federation and local Planned Parenthood knew of Gosnell’s grisly business, but they stayed silent. Meanwhile, Gosnell’s clinic went almost two decades without inspection as women and girls were victimize and subjected to dangerous and inhumane conditions,” noted Dr. Yoest. “This case underscores why abortion clinics must be subjected to medically appropriate standards and regular inspections. And Kermit Gosnell is not the aberration that abortion advocates claim.  Over the last three years at least 15 states have initiated investigations into the conditions and practices of abortion clinics.  These investigations were triggered by women’s deaths, reports of dangerous and unsanitary practices that exposed women to injuries and infections, and infants born alive following attempted abortions.

“How many more must die? Karnamaya Mongar died following her abortion in Gosnell’s clinic.  We have also mourned the loss of Jennifer Morbelli, Lou Anne Herron, Tonya Reaves, and many others at the hands of Big Abortion.  We promise to remember their names and to fight to protect future generations.”

“The abortion industry claims we need more ‘access’ to abortion – even as it is legal through all nine months of pregnancy today,” noted Dr. Yoest. “They consistently equate mere access to abortion with women’s healthcare.  But consider what we learned from the Gosnell trial, about the kind of ‘care’ provided by Big Abortion.”

The details of Gosnell’s 258 charges:

· Four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of born-alive infants.  (He originally faced 7 counts, but 3 were dismissed at trial)

· One count of third-degree murder in the 2009 death of patient Karnamaya Mongar, a mother of four who had survived 20 years in a refugee camp in Bhutan before fleeing to the U.S.

· 24 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s Abortion Act by performing illegal third-trimester abortions

· 227 counts of violating the Pennsylvania Abortion Act’s 24-hour waiting period requirement and failing to properly counsel patients

· Racketeering

· Conspiracy

· Criminal solicitation

AUL has developed a unique expertise in the area of abortion clinic regulations. Drawing on our successful decade’s long defense of Arizona’s 1999 abortion clinic regulation law, AUL has developed two pieces of model legislation requiring regular inspections of abortion clinics and strict adherence to medically appropriate standards of patient care:

•   The “Abortion Patients’ Enhanced Safety Act” mandates that abortion clinics meet the same stringent patient care standards as other facilities performing other outpatient surgeries.

•   The “Women’s Health Protection Act” requires that abortion clinics meet minimum health and safety standards in a variety of areas including recordkeeping, staffing, sanitation, patient intake and testing, the abortion procedure itself, and post-operative care.

To see a video of AUL’s Dr. Yoest debate NARAL’s Ilyse Hogue on PBS’s “NewsHour” about Pro-Life Legislative Momentum in light of the Gosnell Trial, click here.

AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest Says “Big Abortion Keeps Abortionists Like ‘House of Horrors’ Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Business by Fighting Commonsense Regulations”



, ,

The consequences of ignoring the harm that can come from unregulated abortion clinics are appalling,” said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest.  “Abortion clinics should be regulated like the medical facilities they claim to be, and be required to provide humane medical care to newly born children.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. (05-01-13) – Americans United for Life President and CEO, Charmaine Yoest, joined other pro-life leaders on Wednesday in a news event in front of a Washington, D.C. abortion clinic where Dr. Cesare Santangelo works.  Santangelo was shown, in undercover video tape released by Live Action this week, discussing allowing infants to die without medical aid if born alive during a late-term abortion procedure.

Dr. Yoest made the following statement:

“Roe v. Wade did not give abortionists the right to abandon infants struggling for life just because they survived an abortion attempt.  The right to life is the basic foundation of any civil society.  Americans United for Life challenges Big Abortion to join us in working for legal protections for infants born alive during botched abortions and for clinic regulations protecting women and girls. This should be an area of bi-partisan agreement.

The Big Abortion industry and their allies argue that commonsense regulation of abortion will infringe on ‘access’ – My question to them is:  ‘Access to what?’ Access to the ‘house of horrors’ run by Kermit Gosnell? Access to substandard conditions that would shut down any other medical facility? Access to STDs from filthy instruments, or fatal injuries and infection? Abortionists do not have a Constitutional right to injure and kill women and girls in filthy conditions sold as medical care.

“The consequences of ignoring the harm that can come from unregulated abortion clinics are obvious. Abortion clinics should be regulated like the medical facilities they claim to be, and be required to provide humane medical care to newly born children.”

Dr. Yoest joined Lila Rose, President and founder of the pro-life group, Live Action, along with Melissa Ohden, a survivor of a failed saline infusion abortion; Marjorie Dannenfelser, President and Chairman of the Board of the Susan B. Anthony List; Jill Stanek, prominent pro-life blogger; Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life, and others who joined together to protest the Washington, D.C. doctor’s acknowledgement of infanticide as a possibility when a child survives an abortion.

For more information on AUL’s clinic regulations, click here.

Defending the Indefensible: Closing Arguments in the Gosnell Trial



, ,

Jack McMahon, the defense attorney for Kermit Gosnell, is a friendly guy. Before the trial began, he chit-chatted with pro-lifers in the gallery. He couldn’t discuss the case, of course, but he shared funny stories and talked golf. He seemed like a nice man.

Only he knows his motives for taking this case. Maybe he’s in it for the money. Maybe he truly believes in Gosnell’s innocence. Or perhaps he felt that he could handle it emotionally, and therefore had an obligation to take the case. (If no attorney were willing to represent Gosnell, the court would have conscripted someone, to fulfill Gosnell’s right to counsel.)

For whatever reason, when the court session began, he proceeded to defend the indefensible.

At the core of his closing argument was the assertion that no babies were born alive; they were all injected with the lethal drug digoxin in utero. But this raises an obvious question: if the babies were dead, why would Gosnell’s employees “snip” their spinal cords?

McMahon’s answer was confused: “Maybe to end the pain, some remote pain left in there.” Apparently the jurors are supposed to believe that dead babies can feel pain.

And why, if the babies were born dead, did Gosnell’s co-conspirators plead guilty to murder? McMahon had an answer for that, too: they were terrified by the “tsunami” of public opinion against them. (How this tsunami comports with the media’s month-long absence from the trial remained unexplained.) He also accused the government of “manipulating” the jury and alleged that the case was an “elitist, racist prosecution.”

The commonwealth’s closing argument was thorough. Prosecutor Ed Cameron carefully reviewed the evidence presented by the fifty-four witnesses in the case.

Medical testimony showed that the newborn babies’ movements and whines were not “cadaver spasms,” but signs of life.

Eyewitness testimony showed that, contrary to the defense argument, Karnamaya Mongar’s death was not a freak accident. Her death could have been prevented if there were trained medical professionals at the scene and the clinic was well-maintained. Instead, she was cared for by a woman with an 8th-grade education, a woman with serious mental health problems, and a 15-year-old girl, in an unsanitary house of horrors.

Most important, the prosecution reviewed voluminous testimony showing that digoxin was not used, or was improperly used, as a matter of course. The four infant victims were born alive.

Americans United for Life is hopeful that justice will be done, and that this case will bring public attention to the need for born-alive infant protections and abortion clinic regulations. The profit-driven abortion industry cannot be trusted to police itself.