Life Legal attorneys yesterday filed a motion for summary judgment against California’s unconscionable SB 245, which explicitly favors child-killing over childbearing. Summary judgment would result in the objectionable statute’s invalidation without trial – and should be granted because the law obviously violates accepted constitutional principles and because the state’s attempts to uphold this seamy exercise in tyranny have smacked strongly of irrationality and of utter dishonesty.
Curiously, the state also has filed for summary judgment – in its own favor. When we’ve analyzed what its representatives are now saying, we’ll get back both to the court and to our supporters. And we’ll try not to laugh.
SB 245 – introduced by pro-abortion State Senator Lena Gonzalez to mark the 2021 anniversary of Roe v. Wade — was duly passed by the California legislature and signed into law by rabidly pro-abortion Governor Gavin Newsom. It took effect on Jan. 1, 2023.
The substance of SB 245 – dubbed the “Abortion Accessibility Act” – involves bestowing a special sacred status on the central ritual of the abortion cult. The Act forbids health care plans from “imposing a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on coverage for all abortion and abortion-related services, including preabortion and follow-up services.” Such a protection is not applied to services related to child-bearing.
Hence, the lawsuit, rooted in equal protection and privacy claims. It is evident that the Act discriminates in favor of women who wish to abort and against women who wish to carry their pregnancies to term.
The glorious thing about Life Legal’s argument in this case is that it is firmly grounded in long-standing California case law brought about by the pro-aborts themselves.
Way back in 1978, a saner California legislature passed a budget that restricted Medi-Cal funding for abortion while fully funding expenses incurred by indigent mothers who chose to give birth.
And abortionists weren’t happy with that distinction. They sued for equal treatment, arguing that the explicit right to privacy in the California Constitution positively required that childbearing and child murder be treated exactly the same. They won in 1981, and the state was thereafter commanded never to discriminate between pregnancy outcomes.
Which is exactly what SB 245 sought to do – because Sen. Lena Gonzalez and her cronies never wavered in their commitment to abortion, abortion, and more abortion as the highest exercise of personal liberty in California’s Bear Flag history.
In a way, the passage of this law served an important purpose for those of us who recognize the right to life of children in the womb and the inherent wickedness of the pro-abortion movement. For longer than most of the living can now remember, abortion advocates have represented themselves as “pro-choice.” When the nature of induced abortion is demonstrated, often with the aid of photographic evidence, the pro-aborts have wailed: “Oh, no, we’re not in favor of that! We just think the woman should decide without coercion either way!” Nowadays, pro-aborts say “pregnant person” instead of “woman,” but the essential argument remains the same.
SB 245 shows how hollow such claims have always been. It proves that the other side has always favored abortion over childbirth. Because it so ferociously expresses what the pro-abortion crowd is really all about, it is especially worthy of opposition. And we at Life Legal are opposing it – so far with pronounced success.
- Don’t forget, or allow others to forget, this important lesson! Our opponents are not for “choice.” They are for child-killing.
- Please pray that the court will grant summary judgment in our favor, hoisting the pro-aborts on their own petard and sending their current abortion supremacy scheme back to the depths from which it came!
- Please also pray for the rest of our work – especially for our daily defense of pro-life protesters, prayer warriors, and sidewalk counselors, who save babies from abortion on a regular basis!