Democrats pledge millions to fight pro-life laws in GOP-leaning states

A billboard sponsored by the Democratic National Committee with the message “Trump’s Plan: Ban Abortion, Punish Women” is pictured on May 1, 2024, in Hollywood, Florida. / Credit: John Parra/Getty Images for DNC

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 27, 2024 / 13:20 pm (CNA).

Here’s a roundup of what is happening with pro-life issues at the state level this week.

Democrats invest millions 

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has pledged to devote $8.3 million to advancing a pro-abortion agenda this election cycle.

According to a DNC statement posted on June 24, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats are “investing millions to build up infrastructure across the country and help elect Democrats up and down the ballot to defend women’s reproductive freedoms.”

Additionally, Democrats have launched a “Red State Fund” to advocate against existing pro-life laws. The DNC has invested $4.5 million in the Red State Fund in the 2023-24 cycle, according to CBS News.

Pro-lifers respond in Florida

In Florida, a political action committee called “Florida Voters Against Extremism” has raised $190,000 to combat an amendment that opponents say would enshrine unlimited abortion into the state constitution. According to reporting by Orlando Weekly, the pro-life PAC has been funded in large part by donations from several Catholic dioceses, including the Diocese of St. Augustine and the Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee.

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops has been very vocal about its opposition to the abortion amendment, which is known as Amendment 4, saying in April that they “will work hard to oppose this cruel and dangerous amendment and urge all Floridians to vote no.”

Suit against Vermont anti-pregnancy center law advances

The U.S. Court for the District of Vermont issued a decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark on June 14 allowing a suit against the state’s anti-pregnancy center law to advance.

The case revolves around a lawsuit brought on by several pregnancy resource centers in Vermont over a state law passed in 2023 that limits the centers’ ability to advertise.

Opponents of the law argue that it specifically regulates pro-life pregnancy centers for not offering abortions. The law says that these centers, which advertise pregnancy counseling and testing, use “unfair and deceptive” marketing tactics that it says “mislead the public about the nature of services provided.”

In its decision, the court said it had found plausible the plaintiff’s argument that the government was illegally targeting pregnancy centers through “viewpoint discrimination.”

“Viewpoint discrimination is a particularly insidious form of content discrimination, taking place when the government targets ‘particular views taken by speakers on a subject,’” the court wrote. “The court concludes that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that both regulations may be viewpoint-based.”

Michigan court blocks 24-hour waiting period law

A Michigan district judge issued a preliminary ruling to block a state law requiring a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

The ruling also blocked aspects of Michigan law requiring abortionists to provide a woman with information on her baby’s gestational age, a depiction of what the baby looks like at that stage, as well as information on the risks associated with childbirth and abortion.

Judge Sima Patel issued the opinion on Tuesday in which she wrote that the mandatory waiting period and uniform informed consent rules are unconstitutional based on a “reproductive freedom” amendment that was passed by voters in 2022.

“The 24-hour waiting period forces needless delay on patients after they are able to consent to a procedure, thus burdening and infringing upon a patient’s access to abortion care,” Patel wrote.

Though Patel’s decision is just a preliminary one, her ruling means that the law requiring the 24-hour waiting period and mandatory pregnancy information will be blocked while the case works its way through the courts.