Following a significant court ruling, Planned Parenthood has started offering abortions in Missouri once again.
This comes after a state referendum in November 2024 passed Amendment 3, securing the right to “reproductive freedom” in Missouri’s constitution.
Despite the new constitutional protections, Planned Parenthood initially paused providing abortion services after Missouri’s 2019 “trigger law” made abortions illegal in most cases following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
However, after Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang temporarily blocked the state’s abortion restrictions in February, Planned Parenthood CEO Margot Riphagen celebrated the decision, calling it a victory against politically motivated barriers that hinder access to care.
On the other hand, Missouri Right to Life expressed strong disapproval, calling the ruling a “tragic day” for the state and highlighting the potential risks of loosening regulations on abortion procedures.
The regulations struck down under Amendment 3 included requirements that only licensed doctors perform abortions and that certain medical procedures be followed, such as determining gestational age and sterilizing surgical instruments.
Pro-Life Group Criticizes Trump Administration’s IVF Expansion
A pro-life group has voiced concerns over the Trump administration’s expansion of access to in vitro fertilization (IVF), describing it as harmful to life.
The American Life League (ALL) argued that the procedure, which often results in the destruction of embryos, goes against pro-life values.
IVF, a method used to assist with fertility by creating embryos outside the body, is controversial due to the practice of discarding unused embryos.
The Catholic Church opposes IVF for these very reasons.
In a statement, ALL National Director Katie Brown criticized lawmakers for supporting IVF without considering the moral implications, stating that it leads to the death of more babies than abortion itself.
Brown urged President Trump to reconsider the policy change, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the issue.
Delaware Pregnancy Centers Challenge State’s Required Disclaimers
Pregnancy centers in Delaware are fighting back against a state Senate bill that mandates pro-life pregnancy care centers to post disclaimers in their facilities and advertisements.
These disclaimers inform clients that the centers do not have licensed medical professionals on staff.
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) has filed a federal lawsuit against the bill, arguing that it violates free speech rights.
NIFLA’s legal team, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), contends that the law unfairly targets pregnancy centers simply because of their pro-life stance.
Anne O’Connor from NIFLA called the bill unconstitutional, while ADF’s Kevin Theriot pointed to the national trend of efforts to silence pro-life centers after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The lawsuit seeks to protect the centers’ ability to operate without being forced to communicate messages they disagree with.
Court Revives Lawsuit Challenging Abortion Time Off Rule for Employees
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit from 17 states challenging a rule that requires employers to offer the same benefits for employees who have abortions as they would for pregnant or recently giving birth employees.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the states, led by Tennessee, have legal standing to challenge the rule, reversing a prior dismissal.
The rule, enacted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in April 2024, was part of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), a law designed to provide accommodations for pregnant workers.
However, the EEOC extended these accommodations to include employees seeking abortions or using contraception.
The states involved in the lawsuit argue that the rule oversteps the boundaries of the PWFA and infringes on religious and constitutional rights, particularly the First Amendment.
Missouri Sees New Debate as Planned Parenthood Resumes Abortions
The debate over abortion in Missouri is heating up once again as Planned Parenthood resumes providing abortion services following a favorable court ruling.
After the state constitution was amended in 2024 to protect reproductive rights, the decision to begin offering abortions again came after a court ruled against certain restrictions.
Planned Parenthood’s move to resume services follows Jackson County Judge Jerri Zhang’s decision to temporarily block Missouri’s restrictive abortion laws, which had been in place since the 2019 “trigger law.”
The legal battle continues to spark divided opinions across the state, with pro-life advocates condemning the decision while pro-choice groups celebrate it as a significant victory for reproductive freedom.
IVF Expansion Under Fire from Pro-Life Advocates for Ethical Concerns
Pro-life advocates are raising alarms over the Trump administration’s recent move to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The expansion, which aims to increase the availability of fertility treatments, has drawn sharp criticism from groups like the American Life League.
They argue that IVF, which often involves the creation and destruction of multiple embryos, is far from a pro-life practice.
Katie Brown, National Director of the American Life League, criticized the expansion as an attack on the sanctity of life, noting that more embryos are lost in IVF than through abortion.
The group is calling on President Trump to reconsider the policy, urging a deeper understanding of the ethical implications surrounding IVF and its impact on human life.
Legal Challenges Continue as Pregnancy Centers Fight State Requirements
Pro-life pregnancy centers in Delaware are standing firm against a new bill that forces them to display disclaimers informing clients that they are not licensed medical facilities.
The law has sparked a legal battle, with the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) filing a lawsuit to challenge the bill.
The lawsuit argues that the bill is unconstitutional and infringes on the free speech rights of pro-life centers.
NIFLA, alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), maintains that the bill’s requirements are not only unnecessary but also a form of compelled speech that unfairly targets pro-life organizations.
The case has attracted national attention as it highlights the ongoing struggle to protect the rights of pregnancy care centers in the post-Roe era.
States Revive Lawsuit Over Abortion Benefits for Employees
A U.S. appeals court has brought a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s rule requiring employers to provide time off for employees who have abortions.
The rule, which extends sick leave benefits to those who undergo abortions, was part of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous ruling, granting legal standing to the 17 states that filed the lawsuit.
The states, led by Tennessee, argue that the rule violates constitutional rights and goes beyond the intent of the PWFA, which was designed to protect workers affected by pregnancy, not abortion.
The case has the potential to set significant precedents regarding the intersection of workplace policies and abortion rights.
Pro-Life Legal Efforts Intensify as Pregnancy Centers Challenge Delaware Law
Pregnancy centers in Delaware are pushing back against a new state law that mandates they display disclaimers informing clients they are not medical facilities.
The legal challenge, led by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argues that the law violates free speech rights.
The centers, which provide support for women facing unplanned pregnancies, maintain that the bill unfairly targets them because of their pro-life stance.
Anne O’Connor of NIFLA emphasized that the law is unconstitutional, calling it an attack on pregnancy centers simply for offering alternatives to abortion.
This case is part of a larger national conversation about the rights of pro-life organizations following the end of Roe v. Wade.
Legal Battle Over Abortion Benefits Moves Forward as Appeals Court Rules in Favor of States
A U.S. appeals court has ruled in favor of 17 states challenging the federal requirement for employers to provide benefits for employees who have abortions.
The rule, which requires employers to grant sick leave or time off for abortion-related reasons, was challenged by the states on constitutional grounds.
The court’s decision to reopen the case highlights the ongoing debate over the scope of federal regulations and the balance between abortion rights and religious freedoms.
The states argue that the rule infringes upon their rights as employers and violates the First Amendment.
This ruling marks an important step in the legal challenges surrounding workplace policies and abortion access in the post-Roe era.
This article was published on TDPel Media. Thanks for reading!Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn