Missouri Family E-News

November 30, 2016

               
New Survey
Boosts Ban on Late-Term Abortions

A new poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans support a law which would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The magazine National Review commissioned a survey by the Polling Company which revealed that 64 percent of Americans endorse the 20-week ban. Only 22 percent opposed the proposal.

The legislation in question is known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is so called because it is believed by medical experts that an unborn child can experience pain by that stage of a pregnancy.

The survey found that 67 percent of women support the bill, as do 78 percent of young voters.  70 percent of African-Americans and 57 percent of Hispanic-Americans agree with the 20-week ban.

Eighteen states have passed some version of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  Federal judges have struck down three of those laws, ruling that they violate Supreme Court decisions that permit abortions until viability. Missouri has a law that prohibits most abortions after viability.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a national version of the Pain Capable legislation. However, the bill died in the Senate when supporters were unable to overcome a filibuster by pro-abortion senators.

During hearings on the bill, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand testified that nerve endings extend to all parts of the skin and tissue of a developing child by 20 weeks of pregnancy.  Dr. Anand is a professor of pediatrics and anesthesiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

"The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or children," Dr. Anand explained.

That's because a preborn child has the highest number of pain receptors per square inch at this stage, while the fibers which help to moderate pain do not begin to develop until 32-34 weeks of pregnancy.

Prospects for passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on the federal level have improved as a result of the recent national election.  President-elect Donald Trump pledged during his campaign that he would sign such legislation if it reached his desk.

In other pro-life news, a recent report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reveals a continuing reduction in the numbers of abortions being performed across the United States.

Statistics from 2013 which have just been released show a 5 percent drop from 2012 and a 20 percent reduction since 2004.  The abortion rate per 1000 women aged 15-44 is now the lowest since 1971, two years before the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision.     
       
  

Listen to the Broadcast Version of the Jeff City Update online at 
null  


Trump Administration May Decide Fate of 
Obama Bathroom Edict
 
The fate of the Obama Administration's open bathroom mandate for private facilities in public schools will soon be decided by the new Trump Administration, the U.S. Supreme Court, or both.  President-elect Donald Trump will be appointing new cabinet members to lead relevant federal agencies, and the Supreme Court will be hearing a legal challenge to the bathroom mandate out of Virginia.

Back in May of this year, two federal departments issued a joint edict that public schools  must permit any student to access the restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities of the opposite sex, or risk the loss of federal education funding.  The mandate was released in a highly-publicized joint statement by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. 

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch decreed that students must be allowed to use private facilities that "align" with their self-professed "gender identity."  Lynch ordained that school district officials cannot adopt "broad generalizations" or "stereotypes" concerning a student's "actual gender", or create a "hostile environment" for gender-defiant students. 

The result of the edict is that any boy has free license at any time to invade the privacy of high school, middle school, and elementary school girls while they are using the bathroom, changing clothes, or taking a shower.  The scope of the mandate is not confined to students who have proclaimed in some form or fashion that they are assuming a new "gender identity."
 
In familiar lawless fashion, Attorney General Lynch claimed that Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 forbid discrimination based on "gender identity."  The fact is that Title IX says nothing of the kind.  In fact, the law and regulations of Title IX specifically authorize schools to provide "separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities" on the basis of a person's biological sex.
 
President-elect Donald Trump has already announced his choices to head the two respective departments that issued the open bathroom edict. Trump has chosen Alabama U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General, and Michigan education leader Betsy DeVos to serve as Education Secretary.  Neither is expected to be a supporter of a federal mandate that eliminates bathroom privacy for young girls in the public school setting.
 
Sessions and DeVos will have the early opportunity to nix the open bathroom edict, since the action was based on no legal requirement or authority, or any federal rule-making activity.  Should they do so, jurisdiction over bathroom and private facility policies would return to local school districts and local school boards, where such decisions belong.
In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a 4th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court decision involving the Gloucester County School District in Virginia.  A 4th Circuit panel ruled that the school district's policy separating restrooms according to biological sex violated Title IX, a ruling that as explained above is in clear contradiction to federal law.  
 
The 4th Circuit judges ordered school officials to allow a 17-year-old girl who imagines herself to be a boy to use the private facilities on campus used by boys.  The student claims she is not able to "focus on college plans and prom and graduation" because she is not allowed to use the boy's bathroom.  Predictably, the lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Virginia.  
 
Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, says the High Court should curb the lower court's defiance of federal law.  "Schools have a duty to protect the privacy and safety of all students.  Students have a right to bodily privacy, and federal law should not be twisted to require that a male be given access to the girls' facilities, or a female to the boys' facilities."
 
At the same time, a federal judge in Texas has reaffirmed his action temporarily blocking enforcement of the open bathroom edict.  In August, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the bathroom mandate until the case is formally argued in federal court.
 
Judge O'Connor is hearing a lawsuit filed by the State of Texas and 13 other states challenging the legality of the Obama Administration bathroom policy.  O'Connor enjoined enforcement of the mandate on a nationwide basis. (Last week, a federal judge in Nebraska put on hold further action on a lawsuit filed by ten other states against the bathroom edict until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the 4th Circuit case.) 
 
Judge O'Connor recently rejected a request by the U.S. Justice Department to issue a stay of his nationwide injunction until the merits of the case are heard, which would have left the bathroom mandate in effect.  In his latest order, Judge O'Connor said that Title IX "relies on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy." 

Joe's Signature

 

Missouri Family Policy Council, 1430 Triad Center Dr., Ste. B, St. Peters, MO 63376
Sent by info-plus@missourifamily.org in collaboration with
Constant Contact