Life Briefs

Texas may bar abortion funding, state's high court rules

AUSTIN, Texas (BP)-Texas may refuse to fund abortions for low-income women, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
In its 8-0 opinion announced Dec. 31, the Texas Supreme Court said the ban on funding abortions for Medicaid-eligible women does not violate the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment and demonstrates a legitimate government interest of preferring childbirth over abortion, The Houston Chronicle reported.
Abortion doctors and clinics had sued the Texas Department of Health, arguing the state should pay for abortions for poor women who have heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy or other illnesses that could present health risks during pregnancy.
In its opinion, the state Supreme Court said the restriction is not overtly gender-based, since Texas funds all other medically necessary care for pregnant women. "The classification here is not so much directed at women as a class as it is abortion as a medical treatment, which, because it involves a potential life, has no parallel as a treatment method," O'Neill wrote, according to The Chronicle.
"This was an attempt by abortion advocates to subvert the will of the people of Texas," said Denise Burke, staff counsel of Americans United for Life, according to the Internet news service Pro-life Infonet. "The term 'medically necessary abortion' is just another way of saying 'abortion on demand' or abortion for any reason. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined 'health,' within the context of abortion, so broadly that the term 'medically necessary' would include women who are suffering from stress, who are simply having an overly emotional day, or who have limited budgets, not just women whose health or life is actually threatened by a pregnancy."
The state's policy is patterned after the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits public funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother.

Federal judge rules against S.C.'s pro-life license plates

COLUMBIA, S.C. (BP)-A federal judge has ruled South Carolina's "Choose Life" auto license plate is unconstitutional.
The state law that established the pro-life plate discriminates against abortion rights supporters because it does not offer a license promoting their views, Judge William Bertelsman wrote in his opinion, according to a Jan. 1 report on the Internet site of The State, a Columbia newspaper.
The ruling came less than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a decision permitting Louisiana's "Choose Life" license plate law to stand. The high court rejected Dec. 2 an appeal by abortion-rights advocates of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The Fifth Circuit allowed the 1999 state law to stand, ruling that abortion-rights supporters did not have standing to sue.
The South Carolina attorney general's office said it would appeal the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to The State. "We're hopeful we're going to win in the end," spokesman Robb McBurney told the Associated Press, The State reported.
The state contended the law is constitutional because the message on the license plate is "government speech" that demonstrates South Carolina's preference for childbirth over abortion, according to the newspaper report. Therefore, the state is not required to give an opposing view.
Bertelsman, however, said it is private speech because selecting the plates is a decision made by individuals, The State reported.
Planned Parenthood challenged the law shortly after Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat, signed the bill into law in September 2001, according to The State.
Russ Amerling, publicity coordinator for Choose Life, Inc., in Ocala said, "The recent ruling by the court in South Carolina was expected. ... We are confident we will get a favorable ruling out of the 4th Circuit in the South Carolina case."
In addition to South Carolina and Louisiana, five other states-Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi and Oklahoma-reportedly have approved similar pro-life plates.

ERLC asks congressional leaders to ban cloning

WASHINGTON (BP)--The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has asked the leaders of both houses of Congress to make a complete ban on human cloning a priority in the new session.
In a Jan. 7 letter, ERLC President Richard Land asked new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to introduce comprehensive bans on cloning as bills S. 1 and H.R. 1, respectively. Land's request came on the first day of the 108th Congress. Citing the recent announcement by Clonaid of the birth of a clone, Land told the leaders, "Even if this particular story is a hoax, the next one might not be. It is critical that Congress move immediately to enact a complete ban on all human cloning. We will work tirelessly to see that the bill is passed and signed into law" by President Bush.
The late December announcement that a clone had been born has intensified calls for Congress to act.
While there is widespread skepticism that Clonaid, which is affiliated with the Raelian religious sect, has produced a successful clone, other organizations are working toward the same goal.
In the last session, the House of Representatives easily approved a prohibition on cloning for both reproductive and research purposes. The Senate, however, never voted on a ban. Supporters were unable to produce enough votes.
By the end of the session, pro-life forces were relieved that a weaker prohibition had not gained passage. By the end of the session, pro-life forces were relieved that a weaker prohibition had not gained passage.
Rep. Dave Weldon, R.-Fla., sponsored the comprehensive ban that passed the House in the last session.

Abortion leaders, Dems attack health decisions

WASHINGTON (BP)-Abortion-rights leaders and some Democrats have criticized recent actions by the Bush administration in the health field.
Critics attacked President Bush's appointment of pro-life doctors to a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services' revisions of information on condom usage and a possible abortion-breast cancer connection.
Meanwhile, 14 Democrats in the House of Representatives wrote to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to protest changes in fact sheets on the use of condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and on a potential link between abortion and breast cancer.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America criticized the president's selection of at least three pro-lifers to the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs as a "frontal assault on reproductive rights that will imperil women's health."
The appointees that Planned Parenthood's Gloria Feldt derided included David Hager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine.
Feldt and other abortion-rights leaders targeted Hager for most of their criticism, both before and after his appointment. Hager, a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist, has called for the FDA to re-examine its approval of RU 486, the abortion drug. The advisory committee on which he will serve reviews data on drugs used by ob/gyns and makes recommendations to the FDA.

For related coverage, see Sanctity of Human Life Archive