NRL News

Pro-abortion heavyweights unload briefs opposing pro-life Louisiana law

by | Dec 4, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

You have to say this for The Abortion Media Lawyer Complex (AMLC for short). They can mass produce gargantuan numbers of legal briefs so numerous (and so lengthy) that were they loaded on one ship, their collective weight would not allow the vessel to disembark. In this case, the destination is the Supreme Court and the containers are challenges to a 2014 Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital (June Medical Services vs. Gee).

We mentioned in passing yesterday what ABC News discussed at great length. How “More than 350 lawyers and legal professionals who had abortions filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court Monday as part of the latest landmark abortion case,” according to Alexandra Svokos.

But their amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) is just a rip-off of a PR ploy they employed in the last abortion case before the Supreme Court.

“For the 2016 case, Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, a number of women, including over 110 legal professionals, also participated in filing amicus briefs,” Svokos reported. In both stunts, the intent was to make the case that without the ability to have annihilated their unborn children, they couldn’t have become legal hotshots, including “lawyers working in the highest echelons of government.”

But that’s just one 66 page brief. There’s tons more. For example…

Calvin Freiburger observed, “As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review a Louisiana law concerning medical standards for abortion facilities, interested parties have filed nearly 30 amicus briefs in hopes of influencing a case that could have far larger ramifications nationwide.” Freiburger noted

One, from supposedly-nonpartisan medical organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), argues that “laws regulating abortion should be evidence-based and supported by a valid medical justification,” and “laws requiring clinicians who provide abortions to have local admitting privileges are neither.”


Contrary to that assertion, however, 32 nonpartisan medical associations – including the Federation of State Medical Boards and National Committee for Quality Assurance, and covering fields from surgery and anesthesiology to dermatology and radiology – affirmed in 2013 that admitting privileges are a legitimate medical standard.

Pro-abortion congressional Democrats, of course, are weighing in to express their opposition to June Medical Services vs. Gee. NPR reports that “Close to 200 members of Congress, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, also submitted a brief opposing the Louisiana law.”

And the oral arguments aren’t until March 4!

Categories: Judicial