The 3 - March 25, 2018

This week on The 3, there's news out of Mississippi, where the nation's earliest ban on abortion has been placed on hold by a Federal judge.  Also, a pro-life Democrat in Illinois has survived a primary challenge that was fueled by the progressive/liberal wing of his party.  Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court heard an important case regarding the rights of pro-life pregnancy resource centers to not be forced by the government to communicate a message that is inconsistent with their purpose.

3 - MS pro-life law put on hold by Federal judge

Just days ago, the governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, signed into law a bill, passed by the Legislature, that would ban abortion in the state at 15 weeks' gestation.  After being passed by a majority of lawmakers, one Federal judge has taken it upon himself to block it.

The Clarion-Ledger reported that the judge, Carlton Reeves, issued a temporary restraining order.  The story states:

In his ruling Tuesday, Reeves said the restraining order would be in effect for 10 days. He asked for "expedited briefings" on whether the court should issue a "preliminary injunction and whether that relief should be consolidated with a trial on the merits."

The article goes on to say that "attorney Rob McDuff had filed a hearing request for a temporary restraining order on behalf of Women's Health Organization."  That is the state's only abortion clinic.

McDuff said that ban was "unconstitutional."  The attorney was contending that an abortion at 15 weeks was scheduled at the clinic on Tuesday afternoon, and if it did not transpire then, the woman could not have an abortion, because at the time of the next appointment, she would have passed the 16-week limit that the clinic has.

2 - Pro-life Democrat wins primary challenges

In a race between moderate and liberal factions of the Democratic party, which had issued overtures that pro-life candidates and office-holders were no longer welcomed, pro-life Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski won the state's party primary.  National Review reported that the campaign of his challenger, Marie Newman...

...was buoyed in particular by abortion-rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, both of which have grown increasingly frustrated with Lipinski’s consistently pro-life voting record, especially as the rest of his party has grown more willing to support unlimited abortion-on-demand. Newman also received vocal support from progressive Democrats, including Senators Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), along with Illinois representatives Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutierrez.

The article stated that the outcome was "a win for the notion that Democratic politicians can be pro-life and survive within a party that’s swiftly becoming more radical on the issue."  It goes on to say:

Still, he remains one of only a handful of Democrats in Congress willing to vote for anti-abortion legislation such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act or the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. So while the efforts of pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List — whose volunteers knocked on more than 25,000 doors for Lipinski in the third district over this past weekend — were surely worthwhile, in the big-picture abortion debate, it’s a very small win, indeed.

1 - Supreme Court hears arguments on CA law forcing pro-life centers to notify about abortion 

Pro-life pregnancy resource centers across California were alarmed when the so-called "Reproductive FACT Act" was passed by legislators there.  The Family Policy Alliance described the bill as...

...requiring that life-supporting pregnancy centers provide women and families a referral to state-sponsored abortion clinics. Pro-life pregnancy centers would be required to post large signs on their walls offering “free or low-cost access” to county-sponsored abortion clinics.

The Alliance stated, "It is not only outrageous – but also unthinkable based on our First Amendment – that pro-life organizations would be forced by the state to promote values that directly oppose their very reason for being."

The bill was challenged, and this week, it was heard in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, and many of the justices did not seem to be sympathetic to the state's claims, according to the Los Angeles Times, which reported that "...most of the justices took sharp issue with all or parts of the California law. They said it was unfairly targeted at the faith-based centers. Doctors and for-profit clinics were exempted from the law."  The article stated:

"If it has been gerrymandered, that's a serious issue," said Justice Elena Kagan. Agreeing, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the law "has a lot of crazy exceptions. … What you're left with is a very strange pattern, and, gee, it turns out just about the only clinics that are covered by this are pro-life clinics."

Justice Kennedy, according to the report, "described the required notice as 'mandating speech' that 'alters the content of the message.'"  Justice Gorsuch said that the state has "other means to provide messages. … It's pretty unusual to force a private speaker to do that for you under the 1st Amendment..."

So, while the outcome can never be assured until the decision is handed down later this year, there was reason for optimism before the high court.  First Liberty Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief, and Judicial Fellow Lea Patterson provided some analysis on The Meeting House.  You can access that conversation here.