This week the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an important case dealing with whether a state can require that abortion facilities have a transfer agreement with an ambulance service. The law has been in place in Kentucky since 1998.
So why would Planned Parenthood challenge a law that was in place for almost 20 years? Because it threatened to close down their relatively new facility in Louisville and the one other remaining abortion facility in the state. Planned Parenthood claims that the requirement that they have ambulance and hospital service agreements impedes their ability to serve women.
But how does ensuring that women have basic access to healthcare in case of an emergency get in the way of helping women in need? It doesn’t, but for Planned Parenthood, any attempt to regulate abortion—even to protect women’s safety—is unacceptable.
Our state ally, the Family Foundation of Kentucky, worked to pass this law in 1998 and has been fighting to defend it from multiple challenges by abortion advocates over the years.
Joyce Ostrander, Policy Analyst for the Family Foundation, had this to say about the suit:
“Women often in very difficult situations turn to abortion clinics assuming they will receive at least a minimal standard of care. This ‘emergency transfer agreement’ standard has been in place since 1998. Why should it now be discarded?”
Family Policy Alliance®, helped elect pro-life legislators and a pro-life Governor in the last several years and are now, along with Kentuckians, reaping the rewards of those efforts. The Family Foundation, working with pro-life legislators, was able to help pass five different pro-life bills last legislative session alone.
However, this case highlights a roadblock that several states are facing when it comes to defending pro-life laws – Attorneys General with different political worldviews who don’t want to defend their own state laws. In Kentucky, the AG refused to defend the law and even wrote a friend of the court brief in favor of the abortion facilities.
This highlights why it is so important to not just elect good, pro-life officials in the highest office but also to ensure that every person we vote for shares our values. This case has even broader implications for state pro-life laws because at least 18 states have laws similar to Kentucky’s. This ruling could affect the enforceability of those laws – laws that ensure that women have access to basic medical care.
Oral arguments will be happening in Cincinnati, Ohio on Thursday, August 8th at 9 am. If you live in the area you are invited to attend. Please, show up at least 45 minutes early. If you are not in the area, please pray for the attorneys arguing the case – that they will defend this law that protects life with diligence and truth.
Standing for life,
Brittany Jones, Esq.
Should a federal judge have the power to change the plain meaning of a word in order to change a law to suit his preference?
That’s exactly what happened at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In his Stoplight® commentary, Stuart Shepard explores the impact of this devious method of legislating from the bench.
And he orders a cheeseburger.