Four ways academia, elected officials, and activist judges protected the abortion industry in June

Pro-life advocates were reminded throughout the month of June of just how tough our fight is to save the unborn.  Two of the nation's most respected academic journals, Democrats in Congress and the White House, and activist judges made it clear we have a long road ahead.

Judicial activism at its finest

Judges playing the role of corrupt referees is nothing new in the abortion battles.  On the 27th, we saw five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court declare that modest regulations on abortion facilities are undue burdens on the ability of women to get abortions and thus unconstitutional.  One day later, the same five justices ruled that it was legal and constitutional to force pharmacy owners to provide abortion-inducing drugs and devices, even if they object on religious grounds.

On June 30, a judge in Indiana blocked a law that would have banned women from aborting their children due to diagnosed disabilities.  Likewise, a judge in Florida blocked the portions of a law that would have defunded Planned Parenthood and opened up the state's abortion facilities to more rigorous records inspections.  And earlier in June, a judge extended his temporary block of Ohio's effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

It was the Supreme Court case that was most damaging.  Early July has seen several states prepare for their abortion facility medical standards to be overturned by lower courts, and abortion groups plan to use the Supreme Court's decision as momentum to fight other pro-life laws enacted in the last several years.

There was some good news.  A judge let stand a 2014 amendment to the Tennessee Constitution that eliminated the so-called "right" to abortion, and a Texas judge dropped one of the two charges against undercover pro-life investigator David Daleiden.

Elected Democrats went to the hilt to protect their abortion buddies

For months, Congress and the White House have battled over how, and how much, to fund Zika virus prevention efforts.  After much negotiation, a deal was struck: $1.1 billion to help Zika victims and to help stop its spread.

Alas, a spokesperson for President Obama said the deal wasn't good enough, in part because the bill didn't give $95 million to Planned Parenthood.  Senate Democrats agreed, stepping up to the plate to block the measure.

House Democrats also continued to unsuccessfully pressure the House to halt its investigation of the abortion industry's corrupt and illegal fetal harvesting practices.

Academic journals play defense and offense

In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a flawed and ethically challenged study that claimed that fetal pain is not felt until 29 weeks' gestation.  The study was disproven twice within two years, and both USA TODAY and The New York Times reported that one of the study's authors did not disclose as a "financial interest" that she was medical director for an abortion facility.

Last month, Just Facts president James Agresti (disclosure: Just Facts is a client of the author) called for JAMA to withdraw the study because of its factual and ethical failings.  JAMA editor-in-chief Dr. Howard Bauchner declined in an evasive response that largely dodged the objections raised by Agresti and others when the retraction call was first made public by The National Catholic Register.  Agresti has continued to call for JAMA to withdraw the study.

Even as the one journal played defense for the abortion industry, another published a taxpayer-funded study/propaganda piece about women who order abortion pills.

On June 22, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study that examined the number of women who ordered abortion pills in nations where Zika emergencies had been announced.  The authors, two of whom work for the group that provides the abortion pills, compared those nations to Zika-endangered nations where no announcement was made.

Here's the kicker – not only did the study have major holes, one of which was acknowledged by its authors and at least a couple that weren't, but the authors closed with a blatant appeal for abortion to be more legal in the nations studied:

Official information and advice about potential exposure to the Zika virus should be accompanied by efforts to ensure that all reproductive choices are safe, legal, and accessible.

Oh, and the group that provides the abortion bills?  Women on Web prides itself on getting abortion pills to women where such things are illegal.  So NEJM essentially played offense for a limited-value, taxpayer-funded study for a group that breaks the laws of sovereign nations.

Pro-life advocates were reminded throughout the month of June of just how tough our fight is to save the unborn.  Two of the nation's most respected academic journals, Democrats in Congress and the White House, and activist judges made it clear we have a long road ahead.

Judicial activism at its finest

Judges playing the role of corrupt referees is nothing new in the abortion battles.  On the 27th, we saw five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court declare that modest regulations on abortion facilities are undue burdens on the ability of women to get abortions and thus unconstitutional.  One day later, the same five justices ruled that it was legal and constitutional to force pharmacy owners to provide abortion-inducing drugs and devices, even if they object on religious grounds.

On June 30, a judge in Indiana blocked a law that would have banned women from aborting their children due to diagnosed disabilities.  Likewise, a judge in Florida blocked the portions of a law that would have defunded Planned Parenthood and opened up the state's abortion facilities to more rigorous records inspections.  And earlier in June, a judge extended his temporary block of Ohio's effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

It was the Supreme Court case that was most damaging.  Early July has seen several states prepare for their abortion facility medical standards to be overturned by lower courts, and abortion groups plan to use the Supreme Court's decision as momentum to fight other pro-life laws enacted in the last several years.

There was some good news.  A judge let stand a 2014 amendment to the Tennessee Constitution that eliminated the so-called "right" to abortion, and a Texas judge dropped one of the two charges against undercover pro-life investigator David Daleiden.

Elected Democrats went to the hilt to protect their abortion buddies

For months, Congress and the White House have battled over how, and how much, to fund Zika virus prevention efforts.  After much negotiation, a deal was struck: $1.1 billion to help Zika victims and to help stop its spread.

Alas, a spokesperson for President Obama said the deal wasn't good enough, in part because the bill didn't give $95 million to Planned Parenthood.  Senate Democrats agreed, stepping up to the plate to block the measure.

House Democrats also continued to unsuccessfully pressure the House to halt its investigation of the abortion industry's corrupt and illegal fetal harvesting practices.

Academic journals play defense and offense

In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a flawed and ethically challenged study that claimed that fetal pain is not felt until 29 weeks' gestation.  The study was disproven twice within two years, and both USA TODAY and The New York Times reported that one of the study's authors did not disclose as a "financial interest" that she was medical director for an abortion facility.

Last month, Just Facts president James Agresti (disclosure: Just Facts is a client of the author) called for JAMA to withdraw the study because of its factual and ethical failings.  JAMA editor-in-chief Dr. Howard Bauchner declined in an evasive response that largely dodged the objections raised by Agresti and others when the retraction call was first made public by The National Catholic Register.  Agresti has continued to call for JAMA to withdraw the study.

Even as the one journal played defense for the abortion industry, another published a taxpayer-funded study/propaganda piece about women who order abortion pills.

On June 22, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study that examined the number of women who ordered abortion pills in nations where Zika emergencies had been announced.  The authors, two of whom work for the group that provides the abortion pills, compared those nations to Zika-endangered nations where no announcement was made.

Here's the kicker – not only did the study have major holes, one of which was acknowledged by its authors and at least a couple that weren't, but the authors closed with a blatant appeal for abortion to be more legal in the nations studied:

Official information and advice about potential exposure to the Zika virus should be accompanied by efforts to ensure that all reproductive choices are safe, legal, and accessible.

Oh, and the group that provides the abortion bills?  Women on Web prides itself on getting abortion pills to women where such things are illegal.  So NEJM essentially played offense for a limited-value, taxpayer-funded study for a group that breaks the laws of sovereign nations.