JUDGE RULES AGAINST PRO-LIFE WAITING PERIOD LAW; AGAIN
BASIC SAFEGUARD FOR WOMEN NOT ALLOWED TO BE ENFORCED
On Monday, December 14, Senior United States District Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that Tennessee cannot enforce our Pro-life 48-hour waiting period law during the appeals process.
In October, Judge Friedman ruled the law as unconstitutional stating, "the mandatory waiting period is...gratuitously demeaning to women who have decided to have an abortion...provides no appreciable benefit to fetal life or women's mental and emotional health. On the contrary.....place women's physical and psychological health and well-being at risk."
Tennessee's Attorney General, Herbert Slatery, is appealing the decision to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Slatery asked Judge Friedman to allow enforcement of the law during the appeals process arguing that "abortion providers have been complying with the law for the entire five years it took to get a ruling into federal court, so keeping the law in place during the appeals process will not harm them."
This common sense policy, in effect since 2015, has resulted in saving countless unborn lives. Additionally, mothers given two days to consider their decision have been saved from years of regret. The extra 48-hours allows them the opportunity to identify life-affirming resources in their community or region.
"Not only are these decisions a slap at Tennessee's abortion-vulnerable women, they are an affront to Tennessee's voters who passed a 2014 constitutional amendment in which allowing a short waiting period was a key factor," said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life. "Our organization remains committed to seeing a similar statute drafted and enforced during the next legislative session," said Harris.
COVID-19 Vaccinations and Abortion
The rumor mill has been working overtime since the announcements of the apparent incredibly fast success of Project Warp Speed and possible COVID-19 vaccines. Many prolife people are rightfully concerned about using any vaccination that is not ethically created and are wondering if any of the inoculations contain the cells of aborted babies. So, whether you are looking for information on the possible COVID-19 immunizations, a list of alternatives, or think that fetal tissue being used in vaccines is fake news, you have come to the right place.
The basic science behind vaccines is that a weakened strain of a disease is created in a laboratory and then administered to the body. Because the disease is weakened, the immune system is more easily able to fight it off and develop antibodies to protect from further infection. The advent of vaccines is one of the most significant accomplishments of modern medicine, saving millions of lives and nearly eradicating once deadly diseases like smallpox and polio.
The use of tissue from aborted babies enters the process of vaccine development in two places. The first is in the “cell culture” the weakened disease is grown in. These cell cultures are derived from a “cell line” that has been cultivated in laboratories for years and can continue growing for an extremely long time. Different vaccines are grown in all sorts of things like monkey kidney cells, chicken eggs, insect cells, yeast, or synthetic growth media. Sadly, others are grown in cells derived from aborted babies. For example, the WI-38 cell line used in Barr Lab’s adenovirus vaccine was developed from the lung of an aborted female baby in 1962.
While none of the living cells from the aborted baby end up in vaccines using the cell lines, the cell lines are continually used to produce the vaccine, and a non-zero amount of biological components of the cells are present in the vaccine.
For immediate release: Thursday, November 12, 2020 by National Right to Life Committee
POLLING SHOWS IMPACT OF ABORTION ISSUE IN 2020 ELECTION
23% OF VOTERS CITED ABORTION AND VOTED PRO-LIFE
31.9% HEARD FROM NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE
WASHINGTON – A post-election poll of voters in the 2020 election found that the issue of abortion once again played a key role in the presidential and congressional elections, and that National Right to Life and its state affiliates were key to getting out the pro-life vote for pro-life candidates.
Nationally, 23% of voters said that the abortion issue affected their vote and voted for candidates who oppose abortion. This compares to just 18% who said abortion affected their vote and voted for candidates who favor abortion, yielding a 5% advantage for pro-life candidates.
In states where National Right to Life’s political committees were most actively involved, 27% of voters said that the abortion issue affected their vote and voted for candidates who oppose abortion. This compares to just 16% who said abortion affected their vote and voted for candidates who favor abortion, yielding an 11% advantage for pro-life candidates in those high-activity states.
These poll results show that the pro-life vote was a major factor in crushing the “blue wave” from state legislatures to Congress. Overall, National Right to Life’s political committees were actively involved in 123 races, including the presidential race. In those races, 78 (68%) pro-life candidates prevailed, including pro-life Senate candidates in Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. A total of seven House races have yet to be called.