NRL News

Pro-abortion PFAW trashes “Trump’s Judge” for not coming to their preferred anti-life conclusion

by | Jul 24, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

I don’t know about you, but over the last number of years I haven’t heard from or read much about “People For the American Way.” PFAW is still around. The last reference I remember seeing was when they joined a coalition of the willing pro-abortion crazies who opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Until today, that is, when a colleague at NRLC forwarded me a  PFAW “News and Analysis” headlined, “Trump Judge Tries to Uphold Kentucky Law that Bans Most Second Trimester Abortions: Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears.”

[FYI. We’re told “’Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears’ is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties.”]

So, who is this evil “Trump Judge”? According to Elliot Mincberg, the villain is Sixth Circuit Judge John Bush.

The issue for PFAW is Judge Bush’s dissent in a decision by a three judge panel to uphold U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley’s permanent injunction of  Kentucky’s House Bill 454  which banned the dismemberment of  living unborn children.

Last month, Judges Eric Clay, an appointee of Bill Clinton, and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gilbert Merritt Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee, concluded that HB 454 was “unduly burdening the right to elect abortion” to require fetal demise before the baby is yanked apart in a dismemberment abortion. On appeal from the state of Kentucky, the full Sixth Circuit chose not to hear the case.

Bush’s panel dissent–and his willingness for the full Sixth Circuit to review the case–were as cogent and they were thorough.

Not to Mincberg. His chastising conclusion reads, “The  Sixth Circuit majority thus overturned Kentucky’s restrictive abortion law in accordance with Supreme Court and other precedent. If it had been up to Bush, however, that unconstitutional law would have remained on the books and severely limited the right to choose.”

Neither assertion is true but the latter in particular—“severely limited the right to choose”—is particularly egregious. You have to be an abortion extremist times ten to maintain that requiring that the hapless baby not be alive as she is brutally destroyed is “severely limit[ing] the right to choose.”

Bush’s 10-page dissent (contrary to Mincberg) was nothing short of brilliant. Writing for Courthouse News, Kevin Koeninger hit several of the key points in the dissent:

Bush cited expert testimony from the trial that showed a large percentage of women seeking second trimester abortions prefer to have a fetal demise procedure before the abortion, and said this created a conflict of interest between the abortion providers and the patients they represented in the suit.

“At the very least,” he wrote, “the proof at trial reflects a potential conflict between the interests of the EMW [the plaintiff] physicians and some, perhaps the majority, of the patients that they seek to represent. All of the evidence presented at trial about patient preference circumstantially supports a finding that at least some – and potentially, most – of patients seen by plaintiffs would favor the effect of H.B. 454 because those patients would want fetal demise before a D&E.”

He added, “The statute essentially requires that abortion providers at EMW receive the necessary training, which in turn would allow those women who prefer fetal demise to obtain it before the D&E procedure is performed.”

Let’s dig a deeper into Judge Bush’s analysis which set off the Abortion Industry and its supporters such as People for the American Way:

*There is the contention that learning to administer one of the techniques that ensure the poor baby has passed before being ripped apart is practically brain-surgery. It’s not, as expert testimony at the trial illustrated. Moreover, as Judge Bush noted, “Dr. Davis–whom EMW called as an expert but did not hire as one of their physicians–acknowledged that an intrafetal or intraamniotic digoxin injection is within the  standard of care for an OB/GYN to perform; indeed, she herself had performed such injections. Likewise, the National Abortion Federation states in its 2018 Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care that an intraamniotic or intrafetal digoxin injection is a permissible option for accomplishing fetal death before a D&E procedure.”

*Judge Bush also wrote that “The reasons why a woman would make the choice for fetal demise” prior to an abortion” were  “demonstrated at  trial. Dr. Anthony Levantino testified that in a D&E procedure, the “[f]etus dies from dismemberment from literally having arms and legs pulled off”; “[it] bleed[s] to death.”Another physician, Dr. David Berry, described a D&E procedure in which the doctor “pulled out a spine and some mangled ribs and the heart was actually still beating.” It is not difficult to understand why a majority of women would want the heart to stop beating before the fetus undergoes such an ordeal.”

And so it goes. Had Mincberg more time and space, he would have no doubt also criticized Judge Bush for writing the opinion of a split three-judge panel that upheld H.B. 2, Kentucky’s ultrasound law.

“Trump’s judges” such as John Bush pose a “threat” only to the likes of PFAW and Planned Parenthood who believe there can never, ever be the slightest limitation on the unlimited right to abortion up to birth.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments

Categories: pro-abortion