NRL News

”Pushing the Envelope” Good Strategy, Very Much Legally Defensible

by | May 17, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortionists across the nation have angrily accused pro-lifers of legislatively “pushing the envelope.” We’ve been accused of promoting patently anti-constitutional laws, which is reason enough to know we have struck a nerve.

There is irony galore here. Pro-abortionists have undertaken a multitude of initiatives to increase the number of abortions, including the creation of mega-clinics and the use of “web cam” abortions which utilize chemical abortions (RU486) where the woman is outside a medical setting. They are not passively sitting by but aggressively pushing a marketing plan.

Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton

When pro-lifers insist that the abortionist be in the same room, we hear whining about “interfering with the doctor/patient relationship.” What “relationship”?

What is a web cam abortion but a situation where the abortionist, customarily from a clinic in a large urban center, communicates with the woman at a remote location by means of a video conferencing system?

After a brief screening and “counseling” session, he clicks a mouse and triggers the opening of a drawer from which the woman takes out the two drugs that make up the RU-486? chemical abortion regimen: mifepristone and misoprostol.

Not exactly holding the “patient’s” hand. And very, very risky to the woman if anything goes wrong.

Nebraska Right to Life is posed to pass a bill, introduced by state Sen. Tony Fulton, requiring “that a physician be physically present in the room when an abortion is performed, induced or attempted by instrument, device, medicine, drug or other substance,” according to the Lincoln Journal Star.

The Attorney General’s office offered State Sen. Fulton an explanation why such a law would be constitutional. The opinion demonstrated that it is not an “undue burden” to require the physical presence of the abortionist, citing language from the original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Harris v. McRae (1980) and from the subsequent case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

This can be said of other pro-life initiatives as well. In many cases they are responses to a pro-abortion onslaught or an extension of laws previously held constitutional, such as “informed consent” laws.

Pro-lifers are busy as many legislative sessions come to a conclusion. They will not be browbeaten into holding back.

Your feedback is very important. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: Legislation State