We applaud Indiana’s approach to taking action to stop the flow of federal taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest abortion provider. With Planned Parenthood already receiving more than $350 million dollars a year in federal taxpayer funds, Indiana is sending a powerful message to Washington — it’s time to put a halt to sending federal funds to Planned Parenthood. The new law already cleared one legal hurdle last month [May] when a federal judge refused to issue a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the law. As this issue winds its way through the federal court system, we’re preparing to file an amicus brief on Indiana’s behalf in support of this law and its constitutional authority to ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion.
It’s no surprise that Planned Parenthood has mounted a legal challenge. The nation’s largest abortion provider certainly doesn’t want to lose millions in federal taxpayer dollars — funds that enable Planned Parenthood to free-up other money to pay for abortions. It’s also no surprise that the Obama Administration would defend a pro-abortion organization.
Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden of The Alliance Defense Fund, another pro-life group supporting Indiana’s action, observed:
The precious tax dollars of the people of Indiana should not be funneled to abortionists, especially during tough economic times. The Indiana Legislature has worded a bill that allows them to be good stewards of the people’s money in this regard without fear of jeopardizing other funding that is clearly not at issue in this bill. In fact, if ... the bill ... is ever attacked in court, ADF would offer to assist in mounting a legal defense of the law free of charge.
The use of state dollars to fund abortions is at the center of not only the Indiana law, but also measures which have been passed in other states. Some state laws are addressing other issues as well. Arizona has enacted prohibitions against racially-based abortions; South Dakota had mandated a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion, as well as counseling to determine if the mother is being coerced. In the latter case, however, Lifenews.com reports that just yesterday "a judge in South Dakota issued a temporary injunction to halt enforcement of [the] new pro-life law ... that was scheduled to take effect [today] had it not been for a Planned Parenthood lawsuit."
NARAL Pro-Choice and other similar groups have shown remarkable ignorance in resisting these new state laws. As one example, NARAL took exception to a comment by Indiana State Rep. Eric Turner, who stated — in arguing against allowing rape or incest to be exceptions to a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, “Someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.” And yet those familiar with the history of Roe v. Wade know that the litigant known as “Roe” in that case, Norma McCorvey, did just that in Texas: Upon the advice of friends, she falsely stated she had been raped in order to try to procure a legal abortion in the state.
Ultimately, the war on life seems doomed to fail. State legislatures are focusing increasingly on areas that cannot seriously be challenged. Do states not have the right to refuse to fund abortions? Is racial bigotry in performing abortions — the actual murder of a baby because it is black or Hispanic — acceptable? Will PETA, which cannot abide any cruelty to animals, not speak out against babies being tortured to death? When parents must be informed, and be responsible, for so much that involves their children’s lives, is the deadly serious act of abortion not worthy of mandatory notification? When government proposes ever more grisly warnings on cigarettes, may women not be warned of just exactly what an abortion entails?
Pro-lifers believe that though the battle will not be won in one day, one day it will be won.