Latest news with #AllianceDefendingFreedom
India Today
3 days ago
- Health
- India Today
US judge strikes down Biden-era rule protecting privacy for abortions
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a rule adopted by the administration of former President Joe Biden that strengthened privacy protections for women seeking abortions and patients who receive gender transition District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, said the US Department of Health and Human Services exceeded its powers and unlawfully limited states' ability to enforce their public health laws when it adopted the rule last rule prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from giving information about a legal abortion to state law enforcement authorities who are seeking to punish someone in connection with that abortion. "HHS lacked clear delegated authority to fashion special protections for medical information produced by politically favoured medical procedures," wrote Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican, during his first in December blocked HHS from enforcing the rule against a Texas doctor who had brought the lawsuit, Carmen Purl, pending the outcome of the case. Wednesday's decision blocks the rule did not immediately respond to a request for is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. Matt Bowman, senior counsel with the group, praised the decision in a statement, saying the 2024 rule "would have weaponised laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity."advertisementThe Biden administration issued the rule as part of its pledge to support access to reproductive healthcare after the conservative-majority US Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made access to abortion a constitutional right came in response to efforts by authorities in some Republican-led states that ban abortion, including Texas, to restrict out-of-state travel for has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the rule, which is pending in federal court in Lubbock, Texas. HHS in a court filing last month said agency leadership appointed by Trump is evaluating its position in this a Democrat, said in announcing the rule that no one should have their medical records "used against them, their doctor, or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care."Must Watch
Reuters
3 days ago
- Health
- Reuters
US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions
June 18 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a rule adopted by the administration of former President Joe Biden that strengthened privacy protections for women seeking abortions and patients who receive gender transition treatments. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services exceeded its powers and unlawfully limited states' ability to enforce their public health laws when it adopted the rule last year. The rule prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from giving information about a legal abortion to state law enforcement authorities who are seeking to punish someone in connection with that abortion. "HHS lacked clear delegated authority to fashion special protections for medical information produced by politically favored medical procedures," wrote Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican, during his first term. Kacsmaryk in December had blocked HHS from enforcing the rule against a Texas doctor who had brought the lawsuit, Carmen Purl, pending the outcome of the case. Wednesday's decision blocks the rule nationwide. HHS and Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that represents Purl, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Biden administration issued the rule as part of its pledge to support access to reproductive healthcare after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made access to abortion a constitutional right nationwide. It came in response to efforts by authorities in some Republican-led states that ban abortion, including Texas, to restrict out-of-state travel for abortion. Texas has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the rule, which is pending in federal court in Lubbock, Texas. HHS in a court filing last month said agency leadership appointed by Trump is evaluating its position in this case. Biden, a Democrat, said in announcing the rule that no one should have their medical records "used against them, their doctor, or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care."
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court to hear case involving anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center
The US supreme court agreed on Monday to consider reviving a New Jersey anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center operator's bid to block the Democratic-led state's attorney general from investigating whether it deceived women into believing it offered abortions. The justices took up an appeal by First Choice Women's Resource Centers of a lower court's ruling that the Christian faith-based organization must first contest Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging it. The justices are expected to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of preventing them from having abortions. Such centers do not advertise their anti-abortion stance, and abortion rights advocates have called them deceptive. The case provides a test of the ability of state authorities to regulate these businesses. First Choice, which has five locations in New Jersey, has argued that it has a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its federal rights to free speech and free association under the first amendment of the US constitution. First Choice is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has brought other cases on behalf of anti-abortion plaintiffs including an effort to restrict distribution of the abortion pill that has since been taken over by Republican states. New Jersey is targeting First Choice because of its views, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Erin Hawley said. 'We are looking forward to presenting our case to the supreme court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff,' Hawley said in a statement. Platkin said that his office may investigate to ensure nonprofits are not deceiving residents and that First Choice has for years refused to answer questions about 'potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare'. 'First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena, something the US Constitution does not permit it to do. No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment – period,' Platkin added. First Choice sued Platkin in New Jersey federal court in 2023 after the attorney general issued a subpoena seeking internal records including the names of its doctors and donors as part of an investigation into potentially unlawful practices. First Choice argued that there was no good cause for the subpoena, which it said chilled its first amendment rights. Platkin moved to enforce the subpoena in state court. Essex county superior court Judge Lisa Adubato granted that motion, finding that First Choice had not shown that the subpoena should be quashed at the outset of the investigation, but ordered the parties to negotiate a narrower subpoena and said that the constitutional issues could be litigated further going forward. The US district judge Michael Shipp then dismissed the federal case, finding that First Choice's federal claim was not ripe because it could continue to make its constitutional claims in the state court and did not face any immediate threat of contempt. The Philadelphia-based third circuit court of appeals in a 2-1 ruling in December 2024 upheld Shipp's ruling, prompting First Choice to appeal to the justices. In asking the supreme court to hear the case, First Choice argued that federal civil rights law is intended to guarantee parties a federal forum to assert their constitutional rights. It said that forcing it to litigate in state court would effectively deny it that forum, since the constitutional claims would be decided before a federal court could ever hear them. Crisis pregnancy centers have also drawn the attention of the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who in 2024 sued 11 centers for advertising abortion pill reversal, a treatment whose safety and effectiveness is unproven. That case remains pending. Several New York crisis pregnancy centers sued James and in August won an order allowing them to continue touting abortion pill reversal.
Reuters
6 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to hear dispute involving anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider reviving a New Jersey crisis pregnancy center operator's bid to block the Democratic-led state's attorney general from investigating whether it deceived women into believing it offered abortions. The justices took up an appeal by First Choice Women's Resource Center of a lower court's ruling that the crisis pregnancy center must first contest Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging it. The justices are expected to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of preventing them from having abortions. Such centers do not advertise their anti-abortion stance, and abortion rights advocates have called them deceptive. The case provides a test of the ability of state authorities to regulate these businesses. First Choice, which has five locations in New Jersey, has argued that it has a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its federal rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First Choice is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has brought other cases on behalf of anti-abortion plaintiffs including an effort to restrict distribution of the abortion pill that has since been taken over by Republican states. First Choice sued Platkin in New Jersey federal court in 2023 after the attorney general issued a subpoena seeking internal records including the names of its doctors and donors as part of an investigation into potentially unlawful practices. First Choice argued that there was no good cause for the subpoena, which it said chilled its First Amendment rights. Platkin moved to enforce the subpoena in state court. Essex County Superior Court Judge Lisa Adubato granted that motion, finding that First Choice had not shown that the subpoena should be quashed at the outset of the investigation, but ordered the parties to negotiate a narrower subpoena and said that the constitutional issues could be litigated further going forward. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp then dismissed the federal case, finding that First Choice's federal claim was not ripe because it could continue to make its constitutional claims in the state court and did not face any immediate threat of contempt. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling in December 2024 upheld Shipp's ruling, prompting First Choice to appeal to the justices. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, First Choice argued that federal civil rights law is intended to guarantee parties a federal forum to assert their constitutional rights. It said that forcing it to litigate in state court would effectively deny it that forum, since the constitutional claims would be decided before a federal court could ever hear them. Crisis pregnancy centers have also drawn the attention of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who in 2024 sued 11 centers for advertising abortion pill reversal, a treatment whose safety and effectiveness is unproven. That case remains pending. Several New York crisis pregnancy centers sued James and in August won an order allowing them to continue touting abortion pill reversal.
Fox News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
'Billboard Chris' sounds off after arrest in 'most woke city' for opposing transgender treatments for kids
Conservative activists warned about the threat to free speech in Europe after they were arrested in Brussels, Belgium on Thursday for holding signs opposing transgender medical treatments for children. Chris Elston, better known as "Billboard Chris," and Alliance Defending Freedom International senior legal communications officer Lois McLatchie Miller spoke to Fox News Digital after they were released, hours after being harassed by a crowd and taken into police custody. Elston, well known for wearing billboards decrying transgender medical care for children out in public, stood out in the streets of the Belgian capital alongside McLatchie Miller. Both wore billboards with the messages, "Children are never born in the wrong body" and "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers." Elston travels the world to spread his message, which he says mostly receives positive feedback. But in Brussels, it was mostly opposition. "It was pretty much non-stop abuse and harassment," Elston told Fox News Digital. "It quickly became apparent that this is probably the most woke city I have been to in my five years of campaigning, and nothing else comes close." "We had a man throw a glass bottle at us. It landed behind me, but right in front of a five-year-old girl who was walking with her dad, smashed on the ground. People were telling me I needed to get out of there because Antifa was going to come, and no matter where we walked in the city, we were getting a lot of grief," he added. After one man continually harassed McLatchie Miller, the pair called the police for protection. Instead, they were told if they didn't remove their signs, they would be arrested. They were then detained, strip-searched and had their signs confiscated, before they were released three hours later with no formal charge, Elston said. "They put us in handcuffs and everything, but they just let us go, and it seems they just wanted to get rid of us instead of dealing with the angry, unruly mob," he added. The activists were in Brussels this week to share their message and discuss policy issues with members of the European Parliament. McLatchie Miller, who works for the faith-based legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom International, said it was surprising to find herself detained, when she is usually fighting for ADF clients whose speech has been silenced by local authorities. "I don't think we were quite prepared to expect this level of hostility here in Brussels, but hopefully it exposes some things that need to be exposed about the need to protect freedom of expression in Europe," she told Fox News Digital. Vice President JD Vance recently sounded the alarm about free speech being under threat in Europe. In a speech in Munich in February, he raised the case of a British army veteran who was arrested and charged for silently praying in an abortion buffer zone to warn that Europe appeared to be retreating from some of its fundamental values it shares with the U.S. and adopting "Soviet-era" censorship. McLatchie Miller said her arrest "really represents the free speech crisis that Europe is facing right now." "Vance pointed this out in his Munich speech just a few months ago, and many people in Europe laughed at him and said that this wasn't true," she continued. "But case after case, time after time, we're seeing this assault on free speech unfold." "As Chris and I were just there sharing a very peaceful message, a very important message, that no child has ever been born in the wrong body, and they do not need drugs and scalpels to fix themselves, they need love and affirmation. It's an opinion that's shared by many people across Europe, and yet the authorities came and shut down that conversation in the streets of this capital city, this heart of the European Union." "If free speech is not accessible here in Europe's alleged home of democracy, then it's not accessible anywhere, and it really does raise an alarm bell," she said. Brussels police did not immediately return a request for comment. Their arrest comes at a time when Elston believes there is a growing movement across the globe of those questioning or criticizing transitioning children. "We're making tremendous progress all across the globe," he said. He cited European countries like Finland, Denmark, and the United Kingdom which now discourage giving puberty blockers to children experiencing gender dysphoria. "The truth is spreading," he added. Elston said he speaks to people on both sides of the aisle who share his concerns about transitioning children, and he believes it was one major issue that swung voters away from the Democratic Party in the 2024 election. "This was the number one issue in the U.S. election that caused swing voters to vote for President Donald Trump," he argued. "It wasn't the economy, it wasn't immigration, it was transgender insanity. And even in these Democrat states, a lot of those voters are sick and tired of this."
