Law Courts

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill announced federal lawsuits against New York, California, and Massachusetts for enabling mail-order abortions by refusing to extradite abortionists charged with sending abortion pills into Louisiana, where elective abortion is banned. The state argues that these 'shield' laws violate Louisiana's sovereignty and criminal laws, citing cases where mailed abortion drugs resulted in the deaths of babies and harm to women, and is also challenging the FDA's 2023 policy allowing telehealth prescribing and mail delivery of abortion pills in federal court.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, along with Alabama and Arkansas attorneys general, filed two lawsuits targeting abortion pill providers and challenging blue-state shield laws that block prosecution of these providers, with a Supreme Court case against New York, California, and Massachusetts and a separate lawsuit in Louisiana against over 30 individuals and organizations. The complaints allege illegal distribution of abortion pills into states banning abortions, highlight refusal by governors of New York and California to extradite indicted doctors, and describe investigations revealing unsupervised online prescriptions and cases of coerced abortion pill use, while also seeking more federal action and challenging FDA rules on mifepristone dispensing.

The attorneys general of Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas filed a lawsuit on September 30 challenging the abortion 'shield laws' of New York, California, and Massachusetts, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The lawsuit argues that these shield laws protect abortion providers who mail abortion-inducing drugs to states with abortion restrictions, and the case has drawn responses from both sides, including statements from New York Attorney General Letitia James and pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a custody dispute involving California parents and a surrogate who refused their request for an abortion after the unborn child was diagnosed with a serious heart defect. The surrogate, McKenna West, delivered the child in Texas and sought conservatorship, while the biological parents sued for breach of the surrogacy agreement and were previously ruled legal parents by a California court.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a custody dispute involving a California couple and their surrogate, McKenna West, who refused to terminate a pregnancy despite a severe fetal heart defect diagnosis. The California court recognized Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the legal parents of the baby, who was born in Texas and underwent surgery, with the Supreme Court's decision leaving the parentage ruling intact amid ongoing medical care concerns.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied surrogate McKenna West's emergency appeal to overturn a California court ruling that she has no legal or physical claim to the medically fragile baby boy she carried, who was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Despite West's efforts to secure custody and ensure the baby received life-saving care in Texas, the baby's genetic parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, retain legal rights and are currently suing West for damages, while courts have ordered that the baby must receive stabilizing and life-sustaining care.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case of Alaska surrogate McKenna West, who refused to abort the baby she was carrying after he was diagnosed with a serious heart defect and sought a say in his care, leaving a California ruling recognizing the intended parents as the legal parents intact.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the custody battle between McKenna West, a surrogate mother from Alaska, and California couple Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, who had a surrogacy contract requiring abortion if fetal abnormalities were detected.

A Texas District Court vacated an emergency order that had kept Baby Gabriel/Rumi, born via surrogate McKenna West, in Texas to receive care for hypoplastic left heart syndrome, allowing his genetic parents to move him to California if approved by doctors. The court found that the genetic parents have consented to all recommended medical treatments and that some restrictions of the emergency order were no longer medically necessary, while maintaining that stabilizing and life-sustaining care must continue and that the Guardian Ad Litem remains appointed for the child.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan declined an emergency request from surrogate McKenna West to intervene in a custody dispute involving biological parents who had told her to get an abortion. West sought to overturn a parentage judgment issued in California in favor of the couple, but the case was not taken up by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a custody dispute involving California parents and a surrogate who refused their request for an abortion after the unborn child was diagnosed with a serious heart defect. The surrogate, McKenna West, sought conservatorship of the child after delivering him in Texas, while the biological parents sued for breach of the surrogacy agreement and were previously ruled legal parents by a California trial court.

Surrogate mother McKenna West is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge a California court ruling that denies her parental rights to Baby Gabriel, whom she refused to abort despite the biological parents' request due to the baby's congenital heart condition.

Surrogate mother McKenna West has filed an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to halt a California court order that recognizes the California couple who hired her as the legal parents of the child born with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS). West argues for custody or conservatorship, claiming she does not trust the couple to provide life-saving care and alleges they demanded she abort the baby, while the couple has obtained a restraining order barring her from seeing the child and is suing her for breach of the surrogacy agreement.

Thomas More Society announces closing arguments in California’s case against Heartbeat International and RealOptions over abortion-pill-reversal communications. The release summarizes the defense’s arguments about commercial speech, evidence of harm, and constitutional protection without reporting a final court ruling.

America is facing a story straight out of 1 Kings: one baby, two parties wanting the baby, and only one of those parties wanting the baby alive. And while this case is not before King Solomon in the Bible, who wanted to determine which of two fighting women was the true mother, judges in the Alaska Superior Court and the California Second District Court of Appeal are hearing ... Read More The post MODERN KING SOLOMON CASE: Surrogate Mother Fighting to Save Baby from Contractual Parents Pushing Abortion appeared first on Students for Life of America .

White explains the remaining briefing, closing-argument, and decision stages after testimony ended in California's case against Heartbeat International and RealOptions. She argues that the outcome could affect pregnancy centers' ability to discuss abortion-pill reversal nationwide and asks supporters to remain engaged and prayerful.

Wallenmeyer outlines California's advertising lawsuit against Heartbeat International and RealOptions and explains the organizations' free-speech defense. She challenges the state's interpretation of abortion-pill-reversal research and trial testimony, arguing that women should retain access to information about continuing a pregnancy.

Under California law, schools can secretly “transition” a child to the opposite gender without even telling their parents. That is, they could. On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered California to stop hiding children’s “gender transitions” from religious parents, since doing so likely violates “parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.” “The parents… have sincere religious beliefs about sex ... Read More The post Why the Supreme Court’s Decision Against California’s ‘Secret Transition’ Is a Win for Life appeared first on Students for Life of America .

The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case that could dramatically strengthen constitutional protections for pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide. California Family Council (CFC) and our allies have warned for years that abortion-friendly officials may weaponize regulatory tools to intimidate ministries offering life-affirming help to women. This case […] The post Pregnancy Centers Back at SCOTUS: New Case Could Protect PRCs Nationwide first appeared on California Family Council .

For decades, Big Abortion and extremist politicians have attacked pregnancy centers in futile attempts to chill their life-affirming work. These efforts culminated in the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which struck down a California law that forced pregnancy centers to engage in objectionable speech. The court ruled that this violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Continue Reading at The Daily Caller >> The post Pregnancy Centers And Life-Affirming Care Vs Political Harassment appeared first on Lozier Institute

Dear friends, This week brings new challenges in protecting children and families, from the Supreme Court to California’s latest abortion expansion. Yet we also see strong action advancing our core conviction that parents have the right and responsibility to direct their children’s upbringing. Supreme Court hears challenge to Colorado’s ‘conversion therapy’ laws The U.S. Supreme […]