Federal Court Rejects Planned Parenthood Lawsuit Against ‘Sanctuary City’ for the Unborn in Texas
(CNS News) -- A lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood against the city of Lubbock, Texas, which had declared itself a “sanctuary city” for the unborn, was thrown out by a federal district judge who said he lacked the jurisdiction to rule on the case and would leave the matter to the “state courts” to decide.
“Because plaintiffs fail to show, as they must, that they have Article III standing to sue the city, the Court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction,” said Judge Wesley Hendrix in his June 1 ruling for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division.
The judge’s decision followed only weeks after the ordinance was passed by the Lubbock City Council, to make it a “sanctuary city for the unborn.”
As the ordinance reads, “We declare Lubbock, Texas to be a Sanctuary City for the Unborn. Abortion at all times and at all stages of pregnancy is declared to be an act of murder, subject to the affirmative defenses described in Section D(3).”
“It shall be unlawful for any person to procure or perform an abortion of any type and at any stage of pregnancy in the City of Lubbock, Texas,” reads the ordinance, and, “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly aid or abet an abortion that occurs in the City of Lubbock, Texas.”
“The Lubbock ordinance is enforced solely by private citizens, not state or local actors,” reported the Texas Tribune. Because of this “the judge said his rulings could not prevent private parties from filing civil lawsuits in state court.”
Lubbock is not the first city to declare itself a “Sanctuary City” doe the unborn, but it is the largest and the first to have an active abortion clinic within the city.
Mark Lee Dickson, director of the Right to Life of East Texas, anticipates further lawsuits. "We have said from the beginning that this ordinance is completely bulletproof from pre-enforcement lawsuits,” he said.
Pro-abortion advocate Andriana Pion, senior staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, speaking on behalf of herself and Planned Parenthood, said the “organization was disappointed the court did not hear the ‘substance’ of the lawsuit, and that people in Lubbock would be not be able to ‘access essential health care’ as a result.”
TV networks refuse to run
pro-life ad
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it would be taking up the first major abortion case in years, the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life advocacy group, announced it was launching a $2 million television ad campaign. But even though the ad the group produced does not contain any graphic footage, it has nonetheless been rejected by multiple television networks.
The ad starts out by noting that, after five decades of medical breakthroughs, "every age group has more opportunity to live — except one. The unborn still fall victim to outdated laws.” It continues, “Science tells us that at 15 weeks these babies have fully formed faces. They smile. They yawn. They feel pain. It's why European countries ban late-term abortions. In five decades, we've learned they are just like us. Isn't it time the law reflects the science?"
S.B.A. List has frequently pointed out that its ad is not a call to action or an attack on any politician, but simply "a response to news that the U.S. Supreme Court will review a Mississippi law limiting abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy" and a celebration of the miracles of modern medicine.
Be that as it may, CMT, owned by ViacomCBS, explained to the S.B.A. List that, though it sometimes takes "issue-based ads," theirs was just too controversial. "While we do accept political and issue-based ads on a case-by-case basis, issue-oriented ads that are designed for the purpose of presenting views or influencing legislation on issues that are controversial by general public consensus are unacceptable," CMT said, according to the Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire also reported that Crown Media, which owns Hallmark, informed the S.B.A. List it rejected the ad "because it does not meet the Hallmark Channel's criteria for the positive experience Hallmark aims to offer viewers.” Sure. Duckies and bunnies all the time is the hallmark of the Hallmark Channel.
CBS, channeling its inner CMT (or maybe CMT was channeling its inner CBS), told the S.B.A. List that "Issue-oriented advertisements that are designed for the purpose of presenting views or influencing legislation on issues that are controversial by general public consensus are unacceptable.” Really, CBS? What is “60 Minutes” if not an hour-long issue-oriented advertisement for progressive causes?
Some “pro-choice” groups are worried about the Court’s decision, though it likely won’t be rendered until 2022. Nancy Northup, the President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that "Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights.”
Note to Nancy: there is no threat to reproductive rights. Everyone has the right to reproduce. Everyone has the right not to, as well…by simply not engaging in the act that was specifically designed for procreation. Don’t want to get arrested for drunk driving? Don’t drive drunk.
Remarkably, restrictions on the wholesale slaughter of innocent life are “controversial” to so-called progressives and those who would aid and abet them. And still others are unwilling to potentially lose a few bucks in revenue by upsetting the “pro-choice” crowd, most of whom were not pro-choice as regards the government telling individuals to stay at home, wear masks in public, or get vaccinated.
Isn’t it interesting/tragic that pro-life messages are “controversial” and not conducive to a “positive experience” while we allow our cities to be burned and looted and our children to be abused and maimed?
Leftists are nothing if not frauds. Everything they do is for the purpose of presenting views and influencing legislation on controversial issues. That is their approach to education, news, “entertainment,” and everything else.
The rest of us must exercise our pro-choice rights by refusing to be intimidated by them.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.
No comments:
Post a Comment