FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 2023
Contact: Laura Macklem
NC VALUES RESPONDS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN WILL OF VOTERS AND PROTECT ABORTION MILLS
Executive Director of NC Values Tami Fitzgerald responded to Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit today, challenging SB 20 in court:
“Today, Planned Parenthood and one of the state’s more notorious abortionists, Dr. Beverly Gray from Durham, filed suit against North Carolina’s new pro-life law, Senate Bill 20, two weeks before it goes into effect. We expected the abortion industry to defend its revenue stream in the state that saw the biggest increase in abortion after Roe v. Wade was repealed almost one year ago in the Dobbs vs. Mississippi case. Afterall, North Carolina saw a 37% increase in abortions after Dobbs, due to its liberal abortion laws allowing abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood and Dr. Gray sued as Defendants the least likely people in the state to defend the law—the Attorney General Josh Stein who unequivocally stated he would not defend the law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services who does not want to have to implement the law, and the District Attorneys in the counties where Planned Parenthood clinics are located—the most liberal cities in North Carolina. Glaringly not named as defendants are the two leaders of the General Assembly—Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore—which passed the law. The lawsuit seeks to declare the new law unconstitutional, unenforceable, and permanently enjoined.
“This lawsuit is indicative of the desperation of the abortion industry to continue murdering unborn children so they can profit financially. Because the abortion industry cannot win in the ballot booth by electing enough abortion extremists to office, they seek to overturn the will of the people’s duly elected representatives—the North Carolina General Assembly. The lawsuit attempts to create confusion, where there is none and to limit the power of the people to pass laws that place reasonable, popular, and common-sense limits on abortion. The people of North Carolina have said through elections and in poll after poll that they do not want unrestricted abortion on demand up to birth, yet that is what the abortion industry is seeking through this lawsuit.
“The Planned Parenthood lawsuit seeks to strike down informed consent, science-based safety regulations on chemical abortion pills, health and safety regulations, and reporting requirements. For instance, they object to a requirement that abortions after 12 weeks (which would only include abortions for life limiting fetal anomalies, rape, incest, and medical emergencies) be performed only in a hospital. They object to giving women seeking surgical and chemical abortions ALL of the information about complications and risks associated with abortion. They object to requiring this information be given by the doctor in person, so the woman can ask questions and interact with her doctor. They object to having to tell the woman the doctor’s name that will perform the abortion. They object to being required to follow the FDA protocol on abortion pills, that it is indicated only up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. I challenge the abortion industry and particularly Dr. Beverly Gray to specifically say how this law harms women. Making abortionists disclose all the risks and complications of abortion, perform abortions in a hospital after the first trimester, give women a chance to ask questions of the doctor, abide by FDA regulations on abortion pills, only protects the health and safety of women. Health and safety is not harming women. Apparently, Planned Parenthood does not care about the health and safety of the women to whom they provide abortions; thus the name ‘abortion mills’.
“The law, known as the ‘Care for Women, Children, and Families Act’ also provides care and nurture to women who experience unplanned pregnancies. It forces abortion clinics to provide safe and adequate facilities comparable to other ambulatory surgical facilities. It provides maternal care, child care, a college education, paid parental leave for state employees, and housing for pregnant women. It seeks to reduce infant mortality and morbidity and allows for safe surrender of an infant up to 30 days old. It’s hard to believe that women who might seek an abortion would want all of these “safety-net” provisions struck down in court. Planned Parenthood said it filed the suit on behalf of its patients. Maybe they should have asked their patients before they filed suit, because statistics show that 76% of women who have had abortions would choose life for their babies if their circumstances were different. But, Planned Parenthood wants women to remain in dire circumstances, so they can spend their money on an abortion, instead of giving life to the best thing that may ever happen to them. The law that Planned Parenthood seeks to strike down would give women the opportunity to choose life instead of abortion. It’s life-giving both for the baby and the mother.”