Dr. Alveda King, Director of Civil Rights for the Unborn
"The Supreme Court is now the Supreme Medical Board, setting its own standards for patient care in the United States," stated Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and director of Civil Rights for the Unborn (affiliated with Priests for Life).
"This decision is an outrageous usurpation of legislative power," she continues. "It only underscores the critical importance of electing a President who will nominate — and Senators who will confirm — justices to the Supreme Court who will adjudicate, not write the law."
Allan Parker, Attorney Working on Behalf of Women Harmed by Abortion
President of The Justice Foundation based in San Antonio, Texas, Allan Parker has been engaged in pro-life legal advocacy for over 20 years. His public interest legal group submitted an amicus brief in the Texas case on behalf of 3,348 women injured by abortion.
"Having represented the 'Roe' of Roe v. Wade and the 'Doe' of Doe v. Bolton, in their efforts to overturn their own cases, which the Supreme Court refused to even hear, I believe today the Supreme Court committed another crime against humanity," said Allan Parker, referencing his legal clients Norma McCorvey and the late Sandra Cano. "With the Texas decision, more women will suffer physical and psychological injuries and death from abortion."
Parker is also a man of great faith, as evidenced by his statement which continues, "Without massive repentance, America is doomed as a nation. But God is still saying, 'America, return to me and I will return to you.' Time is very short. The abolitionists called the Dred Scott decision a 'covenant with death and an agreement with the grave' based on Isaiah 28, words that still ring true today."
"His Word states in Isaiah 28:18: 'Your covenant with death will be annulled, your agreement with the grave will not stand.' We will continue to speak up for the poor and helpless, both women and children, and see that they get justice."
Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life
"Being pro-life means wanting what is best for women and babies," begins Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life, in reacting to the decision. "The Texas law was in the best interest of women's health. Because of the decision today, beauty parlors, veterinarian clinics and public pools will be held to higher sanitary and health standards than abortion clinics."
"As President of an organization that works for a culture where abortion is unthinkable, my hope is that no woman would choose abortion. But can't we agree to care about safety and health standards?" Mancini asks, backed by her decade of experience defending women's lives and health.
"For years, abortion advocates have equated greater access to abortion with improving women's health. In doing so they have advocated for substandard health regulations. This is not pro-woman. Women and babies are the real losers of today's decision," she concludes.
Dr. Michael New, Associate Scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute
"Today's Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is both a disappointment and a setback for pro-lifers," says Michael New, Ph.D., who teaches at Ave Maria University and authors research analysis at Charlotte Lozier Institute, a think tank committed to principles of human dignity. "After the Kermit Gosnell trial in 2013, I do not know how any serious person could think that abortion clinics need less regulation."
"Furthermore Justice Breyer's majority opinion is poorly argued. He claims that in the aftermath of HB 2, abortion would only be available in Texas cities. However, in many states, the only abortion clinics are located in cities. That is not unique to Texas. He also claims abortion is a safe procedure. However, reporting of abortion deaths and injuries is very weak — partly because clinics are so poorly regulated."
"In light of this decision I would like to offer pro-lifers some encouragement," New shares from his years of pro-life policy work. "Very often the judiciary has struck down pro-life legislation. However, in light of these decisions pro-life legislators have been able to re-draft legislation in such a way so that subsequent versions were upheld by the court. This was the case with partial-birth abortion bans, parental involvement laws, and informed consent laws. A revised version of HB 2 may well be upheld."
"Overall, pro-lifers should hold their heads high. Every year, abortions are going down, more people identify as pro-life, and more states are enacting pro-life legislation. Today was a setback, but future victories await pro-lifers!"