Why is Planned Parenthood so Afraid?Aug 04, 2017
As we told you about yesterday, the abortion behemoth plans to drop $3 million to ensure the election of pro-abortion candidate for governor, Ralph Northam. This comes as no surprise, of course. As the Washington Post celebrated, “Northam has been a key ally to abortion groups, making the issue a top priority during his time in Richmond.”
Some believe Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are counting on Northam and his Democrat allies to keep the taxpayer money flowing to their facilities. In our opinion, any taxpayer money funneled to Planned Parenthood is too much. In the Commonwealth, Planned Parenthood benefits from federally mandated Medicaid funds to the tune of around $150,000 annually, plus a small amount of non-Medicaid funding (which we have sought to ban). Not paltry, but a drop in the bucket to a $1 BILLION business like Planned Parenthood.
No, the real money Planned Parenthood fears losing, should someone other than a pro-abortion zealot be elected governor, isn’t directly from the taxpayers.
You see, between the time the abortion center health and safety standards were adopted and today, Virginia went from having 22 abortion centers to 14. Some closed for reasons unrelated to the health and safety standards, such as lease issues, loss of client share, and owner retirement. Two never bothered to try to meet the standards and didn’t even try to get licensed, closing down before even an initial inspection. One, the Steven Brigham owned center in Fairfax, was so bad the Department of Health, even under Terry McAuliffe, suspended its license and it subsequently closed.
And while the McAuliffe administration illegally watered down the standards, the industry knows if a pro-life governor is elected who has the courage to fight to get them fully implemented again, especially the construction standards, many more abortion centers are likely to close.
Fewer abortion centers mean fewer abortions. Since 2010 the abortion rate in Virginia is down 32 percent. That's more than 8000 babies saved. In cold numbers, just like Planned Parenthood likes, at an average of $450 an abortion, it's a loss of revenue of nearly $4 million to the abortion industry. That’s a number Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry is desperate to reverse.
Besides fewer abortion centers, a big reason for that drop is pregnancy help centers that provide real assistance to women who face an unplanned pregnancy. The very same facilities then state Senator Ralph Northam sought to regulate out of business in 2010, an effort that failed then, but who knows what promises Northam has made to the industry in exchange for the $3 million.
The reality is the abortion industry is terrified that more and more women are choosing to keep their babies, is losing money, and is frantic for people like Ralph Northam to help keep them in business. Funneling $3 million to a campaign (instead of actually providing health care) is just the cost of doing business.
Primaries are Over, Now the Fun Begins!
Primaries are Over, Now the Fun Begins!
Last weekend the Republican Party of Virginia officially ruled Scott Wyatt the winner of the highly publicized 97th House District nomination contest between him and Delegate Chris Peace, seemingly concluding what has been a heated primary season in Virginia all-around. Several incumbents faced stiff competition from primary challengers, jockeying over who could appeal to their political base the most. While most incumbents survived their contests, others, like Chris Peace, Bob Thomas and Roslyn Dance, were defeated by their challengers.
The biggest story of this primary season, however, isn’t so much which candidates actually won or lost, but how the family values and limited government principles we believe in and fight for dominated many of the races.
Last year we warned lawmakers that expanding Medicaid would create a giant and ever-expanding budget expense, largely dependent on matching federal funds, and allow for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to expand their reach to more low-income Medicaid recipients. In the 97th District, it appears that Medicaid expansion inspired many Hanoverians to use a convention to select Scott Wyatt as the Republican nominee over the incumbent Chris Peace, who strongly supported Medicaid expansion in 2018. Similarly, voters in the 28th House District also displeased with Medicaid expansion chose Paul Milde over incumbent Bob Thomas.
In Southwestern Virginia, casino gambling proved to be a major issue as it inspired Michael Osborne to challenge (unsuccessfully) Israel O’Quinn for the 5th District seat in the House of Delegates. O’Quinn carried legislation this year to allow the city of Bristol to hold a referendum to approve casino gambling. On the Senate side, Delegate Todd Pillion secured the Republican nod for the 40th Senate District, as Ken Heath decided to run as an independent rather than a Republican. While we’re not sure about Heath’s position on casino gambling, it is reasonable to suspect that Delegate Pillion – endorsed by retiring Senator Bill Carrico – will at the very least be supportive of legislation to approve government endorsed casino gambling in Virginia.
This primary season, pro-life values were not only an issue in key Republican districts, but also some Democratic districts as well. On the Republican side, incumbent Senator Emmet Hanger in the 24thDistrict had to fend off a challenge from Tina Freitas (wife of Delegate Nick Freitas), who criticized Hanger for his votes on Medicaid expansion and the “LARC” program –which funnels public dollars to Planned Parenthood, as well as his opposition to the Hyde Amendment (until this year).
Ironically, the most intriguing primary race may have been in the 16th Senate District between incumbent Roslyn Dance, a staunch pro-choice supporter, who was upended by former Delegate and self-proclaimed pro-lifer Joe Morrissey. Though his past record doesn’t quite reflect his current “pro-life” rhetoric, it is interesting that he was able to win the primary with a position that is in stark contrast given his party’s progressive agenda on this issue. Of course, the race may have been more about a popularity contest as Morrissey was hardly a no-name challenger and carried a very flavorful past.
With the primaries behind us, no doubt the hot days of summer will be even hotter as the general election contests kick off into full swing. There is only one certainly this November - the General Assembly, notwithstanding the new district lines, will have a lot of new faces in both the House and the Senate who are filling vacancies left by retiring legislators. Here’s the list of retiring legislators whose seats will be filled with a new face in 2020:
Del. Dickie Bell (20th House District)
Del. Gordon Helsel (91st House District)
Del. Brenda Pogge (96th House District)
Del. Riley Ingram (62th House District)
Del. Matthew James (80th House District)
Del. David Toscano (57th House District)
Sen. Bill Carrico (40th Senate District)
Sen. Dick Black (13th Senate District)
Sen. Frank Wagner (7th Senate District)
Delegates Todd Pillon, Debra Rodman and Cheryl Turpin’s seats will also be filled with a new face now that they are running for the Senate this fall.
All of this shows how important it is for voters to be aware of their state legislators and what they will do if elected (or re-elected). A great way to learn more about your state Delegate and Senator is by reading The Family Foundation Action’s nonpartisan General Assembly Report Card, which shows you exactly how legislators voted on specific legislation that has a significant impact on families.
In addition to the Report Card, this fall we will also be distributing our non-partisan Voter Guides that compare the positions of candidates on important issues such as life, marriage, parental rights and religious liberty. Just like the Report Card, these Guides do not endorse or oppose any candidate or political party, but are meant to help voters learn more about where candidates stand on these important issues.
This is a critical election, with pro-life and pro-family policies hanging in the balance. Make no mistake, the ideological Left has already planned what they intend to accomplish if they have progressive-minded legislators elected into office. According to Blue Virginia, here are the progressive policies modeled after New York that they plan to advance here in Virginia:
Ratify the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”), which would enshrine abortion into the U.S. Constitution;
Pass strict anti-sexual harassment laws (which we now always worry about their initiatives involving “sexuality”);
Ban biologically affirming counseling, or so-called “conversion therapy,” for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions, as 14 other states have done;
Decriminalize marijuana for recreational use; and
Codify Roe v. Wade into state law, guaranteeing women’s “right” to an abortion even after the 24th week of pregnancy, up until birth.
This is only the start of what they’ll do if legislators without conservative, family values are elected to office.All of this is to implore you to remain engaged, and use this time to encourage neighbors and friends to support candidates that will uphold our sacred and deeply held values.
The 2018-2019 Report Card is Here!
The 2018-2019 Report Card is Here!
The Family Foundation Action today released the 15th edition of its non-partisan General Assembly Report Card. This educational document informs citizens on key votes taken by the General Assembly during the 2018 and 2019 legislative sessions that relate to the issues of life, marriage, parental authority, religious liberty, and constitutional government. Click the icon below to view the new Report Card to see how your legislators voted:
It is our hope the 2018-2019 Report Card, along with Voter Guides that will be distributed this fall, will help motivate citizens to vote and enable them to make informed choices. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates and all 40 Virginia Senate seats are up for reelection, which will be held Tuesday, November 5th. Voters will also have the opportunity to review the scores of several legislators seeking re-nomination by their party prior to the June primary elections scheduled for Tuesday, June 11th.
As with each Report Card distributed over the years, hundreds of votes taken by the legislature during the past two years were reviewed. The first page of the Report Card explains the criteria used in determining which votes to include. Non-partisan and broad-based, the Report Card seeks not to benefit one party or candidate over another, but to equip voters with the information they need to make an informed choice when they go to the ballot box.
This year’s Report Card has fourteen “100 percenters” in the House of Delegates and three in the state Senate.
To order additional copies of the Report Card to distribute in your church, community groups, or to like-minded friends and neighbors, click here or contact The Family Foundation Action at 804-343-0010 or at email@example.com. A suggested donation of $.25 per copy is encouraged to help defray costs of printing and distribution. Please also consider sponsoring the distribution of 100, 500 or even 1,000 Report Cards with a donation of $25, $125, or $250. Checks should be made out to "TFF Action" and mailed to 919 E. Main Street, Suite 1110, Richmond, VA 23219, or you can pay by credit card here. Thank you for your support!
The mission of The Family Foundation Action is to protect families and promote responsible citizenship by giving Virginians the tools they need to hold their elected officials accountable. The Family Foundation Action is not a PAC and does not endorse candidates. Therefore, please be advised that political campaigns and candidates for public office may not use either The Family Foundation or The Family Foundation Action logo for any campaign-related publications. Any such use of these logos is not authorized and should be ceased and corrected immediately.
The Family Foundation Action is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) organization and paid for this informational communication. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
While the shockwaves continue to reverberate after Tuesday’s dismal election results, pundits and politicians alike have more than their fair share of opinions as to the reasons. That’s all well and good and an important exercise. You likely have a strong opinion about why Virginians voted the way they did. I know I do. But while a deep and painful discussion must take place about why things played out that way and what needs to be done in the future, it's unlikely that a constructive conversation can take place on the pages of the Washington Post, where too many seem willing to share their view.
In the meantime, we have to deal with the immediate consequences of the election.
You see, Virginians didn’t just send a bunch of new Democrats to the General Assembly. They sent some of the most aggressive, extreme leftist politicians Virginia has ever seen. From staunch, self-proclaimed socialists to pro-abortion zealots, we can expect them to introduce some of the most dangerous anti-life, anti-faith, anti-freedom legislation in Virginia history beginning in January. And with both chambers controlled by Republicans only by the narrowest of margins, the fight to stop those proposals will be extraordinarily difficult. But that is what we must do all the same.
We will be happy to work with members of both parties where we can, in particular in areas like fixing foster care and adoption law, eliminating human trafficking, addressing school discipline and any other areas where we can find common ground. But make no mistake, the so-called “progressive” liberals who were elected on Tuesday didn’t run on any of those issues. They ran to force you to pay for abortions at any point during pregnancy; they ran to force your children into public school showers and locker rooms with kids of the opposite sex; they ran to crush religious freedom in the public square; and they ran to create a far more dominant, centralized government.
If media stories are correct and thousands of voters literally “didn’t care” who was on the ballot and didn’t have a clue who they were voting for - only that they were voting against Republicans - then perhaps this is a “wave” election and can be corrected in short order. I find it bizarre that people would act so irrationally, but we live in an age where reason and common sense are obliterated by emotional outbursts, so such a possibility exists. Dislike the President? Fine. But to turn around and vote for people you know nothing about and not care what their agendas might be is irresponsible and dangerous.
In the meantime, however, that’s all the more reason why we need to stop anything and everything they try in the next two years. We look forward to working with both Senate and House leaders on preventing leftist extremism in Virginia.
Unfortunately, on Tuesday, The Family Foundation lost some key, strong leaders and key allies to our principles. Men like Scott Lingamfelter, John O’Bannon, Jackson Miller, Rich Anderson, Tag Greason, Jim LeMunyon, Bob Marshall and others were defeated. The General Assembly not only lost key pro-family conservatives, it also lost men of great experience, principle and intellect who worked hard for every Virginian. They will be greatly missed and I for one am truly saddened by their losses.
I recognize that today you may be discouraged and dejected. I am, too. But we must resist the temptation to retreat. Regardless of whether Virginia is blue, red or purple, the principles you and I share are the only hope for a thriving culture. We have no choice to but advocate for truth and righteousness even in the face of such devastating elections. And, we have no choice but to do all we can to resist the agenda of those who seek to take away our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In the long term, those of us who understand that social, tax, health care, and welfare policies that have torn families apart, prevented families from forming, or stressed families to the breaking point are contributing to the destruction of the one and only entity that gives people a deep identity, stability, security and – as John Adams (the original one!) once said – forms the moral foundation for people. The extreme left that now dominates the Democrat party believes the opposite – it believes the family is the problem and not the solution. Until we are able to once again persuade younger generations that it is only in the formation of strong families with a mom and a dad where they will find the security they so desperately seek in government, I fear for not just future elections but the future of our nation. Simply put, our society will not survive the continued assault on the family unit.
Defying our creator’s design for family will prove as successful as attempting to defy gravity. You can for a while, but eventually, you come crashing to earth. In America today, we are reaping a generation of broken families and family fragmentation. It isn’t just economic and it’s not just political; it’s moral and cultural as well. We ignore this to our own peril. At The Family Foundation, we are committed to restoring the family as the foundation of our society. It may only happen when the policies endorsed by the secular left come crashing down around us, but it will happen. I hope we don’t have to wait for the destruction of our culture before we rebuild. I hope the church gets serious about standing for the truth of God’s design for family and morality in a powerful and persuasive way. Teaching how to balance a checkbook is nice and all, but it isn’t why the church was created.
In the meantime, we fight on, politically and culturally. We can’t stop. The future depends on it.
The NEA Finally Admitted It!
The NEA Finally Admitted It!
Last month the National Education Association (NEA) adopted Business Item 56 that makes official its support for abortion – something we have suspected for years. Once again, the NEA, and by extension the Virginia Education Association (VEA), have shown us that they are less about education and more about advancing an ideologically liberal agenda. This has become abundantly clear in their VEA fund endorsements made earlier this year, a list where you won’t find a single pro-life candidate.
Business Item 56 states the following:
“Furthermore, the NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person's right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people. The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.”
On average, a public school teacher pays the NEA $192 in annual dues. In return teachers are able to take advantage of benefits like shopping discounts, life insurance plans, and student loan forgiveness programs. The NEA, despite their best efforts to convince us otherwise, uses the dues to pay for political activities that often conflict with a teacher’s personal convictions. Now with the adoption of Business Item 56, the NEA will use a percentage of teachers’ dues to fund its political activities to specifically promote abortion.
The NEA, the largest teachers’ union in the United States with 2.2 million members, says its mission is to “advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world.” Clearly their adoption of an organizational policy supporting Roe v. Wade and the abortion industry is inconsistent with its stated mission and elevates a liberal ideology above the interests of its members. The position expressed by the NEA will be in direct conflict with the values and principles that many teachers hold regarding the sanctity of life.
But there are several alternatives to the NEA without the political agenda. That’s right, a public school teacher doesn’t have to join the NEA to receive helpful benefits and be part of a network of likeminded teachers dedicated to teaching our youth.
Instead public school teachers should consider joining one of the following groups:
1. American Association of Educators (AAE) - AAE is a non-profit professional association that serves thousands of teachers across the country. They describe themselves as a “national, non-union, professional educators' organization, advancing the profession by offering a modern approach to teacher representation” that seeks to promote professionalism, collaboration and excellence without a partisan agenda.” (Emphasis added.)
As a member of AAE, a teacher will receive many of the same benefits that the NEA “promises,” including liability insurance, shopping discounts, scholarships, grants, and legal services, but with a lower annual membership fee.
2. Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) – A teacher interested in being part of a Christian-based organization should consider CEAI, which offers many of the same benefits but with a missional component. In addition to membership benefits such as legal services, insurance and store discounts, CEAI provides a ministry to equip teachers to be “missional educational leaders.”
3. Virginia Professional Educators - VPE is a nonprofit professional group for Virginia teachers that also provides many of the same benefits the VEA offers, but at a lower cost and without the “partisan politics and controversial social agendas of teacher unions.” VPE is a growing professional group for teachers with several thousand members.
It’s time to dismantle the illusion that the only professional group for teachers is the NEA. Teachers should be made aware that there are other groups that offer professional development without the stress of being connected to political positions that may conflict with their personal beliefs.
Changing Hearts and Minds About Abortion
Changing Hearts and Minds About Abortion
A majority of Americans are decidedly not “pro-choice.” This is according to a recent Gallup poll in which 49% of respondents reported that they consider themselves pro-life, compared to 46% who identify as “pro-choice.” This marks the first time since 2013 that a majority of survey respondents in a major poll identify as pro-life.
The notable shift in polling shows that hearts and minds can be and are being changed, which is arguably more important than any law we could pass. You see, we don’t have to wait until the legislature passes laws that limit abortions or until Roe v. Wade is overturned in order to end this scourge on our society, though we should still work diligently to make those happen. We can actually have an immediate impact in our communities by changing the hearts and minds of people on this issue.
That being said, public opinion on abortion has no doubt had a significant impact on abortion policies across the country, resulting in a flurry of laws aimed at either curbing abortion or expanding it.
The ideological Left and abortion advocates nationwide are going crazy over new laws in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri that establish important restrictions on abortion in those states. So much so, that they are passing their own radical abortion-on-demand bills in states like Illinois and New York that will allow abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth.
The issue of abortion has become so heated of late that in response to Georgia’s “Heartbeat Bill”, Hollywood is actually boycotting the state. Hollywood elites and abortion proponents seem to be concerned about the strong possibility that a case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges its current Roe v. Wade precedence, especially as the makeup of the Court is trending more and more strict constructionist.
Last month we concluded our “No Pink Lights Over Richmond Tour” around the Commonwealth in which we discussed legislation concerning the sanctity of life. We were encouraged to receive positive feedback and great participation. During the Q&A Session following one of the presentations, a participant asked what our thoughts were on the recent heartbeat legislation being pushed in other states and whether we could expect something like that here in Virginia. Given what transpired in Virginia this year, it would not be surprising to see “Heartbeat” legislation introduced next year. But let’s more fully unpack the context of the heartbeat legislation.
In an attempt to start the process of challenging Roe v. Wade, Alabama passed a law that makes it a felony to perform an abortion except in cases when the mother’s life is in danger, effectively eliminating the practice of abortion in the state. Governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law on May 15, 2019 and issued the following statement:
"No matter one's personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable. As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions. Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur."
The Alabama law sets in motion what will inevitably become a contentious and long legal battle that will take years to traverse the court system. Only time will tell if the case ever makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless, this law was clearly a bold move to return the issue of abortion back to the states by forcing the Supreme Court to finally reconsider (and overturn) the landmark 1973 decision.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) introduced the “Abortion is Not Health Care Act”, which could disincentivize some abortions by disallowing taxpayers from deducting abortion costs from their taxable income. Under Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code, abortion expenses paid during the taxable year that were not covered by insurance, by the taxpayer, his/her spouse, or a dependent may be deducted from income if they exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income.
These legislative actions represent two important approaches to policy-making with slightly different intended purposes. The first approach, which is the primary purpose of the Alabama law, is to impose certain restrictions on abortion that would trigger a legal challenge that is intended to reach the Supreme Court. The second approach is a pragmatic form of policy-making meant to restrict, defund, and limit abortions. While the later approach doesn’t strike at the heart of the abortion issue like the Alabama law, it is extremely valuable for keeping an abortion industry that desperately wants conduct its activities uninhibited in check.
For example, the legislature in Virginia has incrementally imposed vital protections for mothers, such as informed consent, 24 hour waiting periods, requirements that second trimester abortions to be performed in hospitals, and ultrasound requirements, to name a few. These pragmatic laws force abortion providers to follow strict rules so as to at least ensure the safety and informed consent of vulnerable women considering such a consequential decision. For the abortion industry, however, they are seen as an impediment to more profit. These achievements didn’t happen overnight, and they could easily be eliminated if legislation like Delegate Kathy Tran’s bill (HB 2491) is ever passed.
We know these vital protections and safety standards work because they were vigorously challenged by the abortion industry in Falls Church Women’s Center v. Oliver. For a summary of this case and what happened during the bench trial, you can read our blog posts “Falls Church v. Oliver", "The Plaintiffs Rest", "Defense Makes Its Case", and “Case Closed”.
The reality is that until the Supreme Court is filled with the right-minded judicial philosophy necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade precedence, we must continue to share our hearts for the unborn and exercise compassion for mothers struggling with this decision.That’s where the greatest change is going to happen.
Case Closed. Decision Still to Come.
Case Closed. Decision Still to Come.
Yesterday, abortion industry and the private counsel hired to defend Virginia’s laws made their closing arguments in federal district court in Falls Church Medical Center v. Oliver, wrapping up a grueling two-week trial in which nearly all our state’s pro-life laws hang in the balance. My team and I, including our five new summer interns, were in the courtroom to witness every word.
After failing year after year to pass legislation to achieve their ultimate goal of unfettered access to taxpayer-funded abortions performed by anyone in facilities with no oversight up until the moment of birth, the abortion industry turned to the courts – targeting Virginia to be its precedent-setting case in that goal. For a quick refresher on the overall case and some of what happened before and during the trial, be sure to look back at our blog posts. (“Surprise Miracle”, “Falls Church v. Oliver”, “The Plaintiffs Rest” and “Defense Makes Its Case”)
In yesterday’s closing statement, the lawyer for Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Whole Women’s Health gave frankly an overstated, over-confident, and oversimplified summary of the facts in this case and how the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents supposedly require the judge to totally throw out all of the following Virginia laws (some on the books since 1975):
- “Window to the Womb" ultrasound law providing a woman the opportunity to view her ultrasound and hear the fetal heart tone if she wishes
- Abortion informed consent materials
- A 24-hour wait period after the ultrasound and prior to an abortion
- All abortion center health and safety regulations
- The requirement for 2nd trimester abortions to be done in hospitals, and
- The requirement for having actual physicians perform the abortion procedure
Despite how reasonable these safeguards are for ensuring the health, safety, and informed consent of vulnerable women facing this permanent – and often conflicted – decision, the abortion industry has proven its willingness to sacrifice anything, and anyone, for the sake of money and power. It's quite revealing that the same industry that purports to be about women's health is doing everything it can to strip away things like health and safety standards, informed consent, and requirements that medical doctors be the ones to perform an invasive surgery. We pray that Judge Hudson sees right through the hollow (yet slick) legal arguments of the Plaintiffs. If his questions from the bench were any signal, we sense that on most of the issues involved, he does.
The attorney defending our laws kept her closing much more direct, succinct, and generally had solid legal arguments. The Defense’s closing highlighted the evidence throughout the trial, even brought forward by some of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, that safety standards have greatly improved the facilities doing the invasive surgery of abortion, that ultrasound is a critical element of the abortion procedure, and that physicians are uniquely qualified to perform all types of abortion and deal with all potential complications.
Significantly, the Defense pointed out that the Plaintiffs did not put forward even a single Virginia woman of child-bearing age who could demonstrate any burden whatsoever in her ability to obtain an abortion as a result of these laws. “If there were such a woman,” said the Defense attorney, “surely the Plaintiffs, who perform abortions all across the Commonwealth every single day, would be able to provide one.” But they couldn’t. That is more than a little problematic for the Plaintiffs when the legal standard they must demonstrate is an “undue burden” on an actual woman pursuing abortion.
While some important points were omitted from her closing and several points were conceded unnecessarily (this was the Attorney General’s hired counsel, mind you), the attorney definitely put forward a laudable and even compelling defense of the laws. And that was encouraging.
Now that the trial is over and all the documents and evidence are in, we are left only to pray for Judge Hudson’s wise discernment, his respect for our laws and the Constitution, and that he has a true appreciation for the gravity of his decision in terms of its impact on the lives and health of women, unborn children, federalism and the rule of law. Please join us in that prayer over the next several weeks.
Whatever the outcome of this case, The Family Foundation will remain ever-vigilant on behalf of Virginia families for the protection and promotion of every human life, and especially those most vulnerable among us. As soon as we learn of a decision in this case, we’ll let you know.