Nos. 18-1323, 18-1460 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________________ JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., ET AL., Petitioners–Cross-Respondents, v. REBEKAH GEE, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, Respondent–Cross-Petitioner. __________________ On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit __________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PRIESTS FOR LIFE AND RACHEL’S VINEYARD SUPPORTING RESPONDENT-CROSS-PETITIONER __________________ DAVID YERUSHALMI ROBERT JOSEPH MUISE American Freedom Law Center Counsel of Record 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW American Freedom Law Center Suite 189 P.O. Box 131098 Washington, D.C. 20006 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113 (646) 262-0500 (734) 635-3756 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae December 27, 2019 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................ii STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE PRIESTS FOR LIFE AND RACHEL’S VINEYARD .................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..............4 ARGUMENT............................... 4 I. Louisiana Has a Paramount Right to Regulate Abortion in order to Minimize Its Harmful Effects.................................. 4 II. The Testimonies of Abortion Victims Demonstrate that More Regulations of Abortion Are Needed, not Less...................... 7 CONCLUSION..............................8 APPENDIX Silent No More Testimonies ...............App. 1 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES June Med. Servs., LLC v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018)............... 4, 5 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).................... 5, 6, 7 1 STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE PRIESTS FOR LIFE AND RACHEL’S VINEYARD Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, Amici Curiae Priests for Life and Rachel’s Vineyard respectfully submit this brief in support of the respondent, urging the Court to uphold the paramount right of Louisiana to regulate the abortion industry in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of its citizens.1 Priests for Life is a pro-life organization created to identify, educate, network, encourage, and mobilize Catholic and other Christian clergy and lay people to advance the protection of unborn children from abortion through prayer, education, preaching, teaching, publishing, and other religious methodologies. To promote its mission, Priests for Life, along with Anglicans for Life, have developed the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (“Silent No More”). Silent No More is a joint project whereby Christians make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women and men. The campaign seeks to 1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Correspondence evidencing such consent has been filed with the Clerk of the Court. Amici Priests for Life and Rachel’s Vineyard further state that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than Amici, their members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. 2 expose and heal the secrecy and silence surrounding the emotional and physical pain of abortion. The specific goals of Silent No More are as follows: • To reach out to people hurt after abortion, encouraging them to attend abortion after-care programs. • To invite those who are ready to break the silence by speaking the truth about abortion’s negative consequences and the path to healing. • To educate the public that abortion is harmful emotionally, physically, and spiritually to women, men, and families, so that it becomes unacceptable for anyone to recommend abortion as a “fix” for a problem pregnancy. • To share the personal testimonies of hurt and healing to help others avoid the injury and pain caused by abortion. Because of its focus and experience in helping foster healing after abortion, and helping the clergy play their key role in that process, Priests for Life has as an integral part of its work the world’s largest ministry for healing after abortion. Called Rachel’s Vineyard, this ministry works across the United States and in 77 countries by providing a healing retreat model based on psychological research on abortion as trauma, and on the spiritual resources of the Christian Churches. Rachel’s Vineyard: • Welcomes small groups of mothers, fathers, and other relatives of aborted children to attend 3 these retreats, in the company of trained professionals, to process their abortion experience and begin the work of grieving the child they lost; • Conducts after-care, assisting the grieving parent and relative for as long as they wish to avail themselves of this help; • Trains clergy and professional counselors about the traumatic impact of abortion and how to help people find healing; • Makes available the published results of the research of its founder, Dr. Theresa Burke, and other researchers on abortion trauma. Having served over 326,000 individuals, couples and families in need of this healing, the Rachel’s Vineyard teams have profound insight into the needs of a person who goes to an abortion clinic, the experiences they have there, and the long-term impact it has on their lives. It is through this Brandeis-style brief that Amici Curiae Priests for Life and Rachel’s Vineyard present to this Court the compelling testimonies of individuals who have been harmed by the adverse effects of abortion so that those who remain silent in the dark shadow of abortion will remain silent no more. 4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Louisiana has a paramount right to protect the health and safety of its citizens, and this includes enacting regulations to raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions. The regulation at issue serves that valid purpose, and it does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. In further support of a Louisiana’s paramount right to regulate abortion and to promote the health and welfare of women, included in the appendix to this brief are testimonies of victims of abortion from states across the country, including Louisiana—persons who have been harmed in a profound way by this deadly procedure. These testimonies reveal that regulations like those enacted by Louisiana are not only valid, they are necessary. ARGUMENT I. Louisiana Has a Paramount Right to Regulate Abortion in order to Minimize Its Harmful Effects. Louisiana enacted the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (“Act”), requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within thirty miles of the facility where they perform abortions. As properly noted by the Fifth Circuit, the Act “is premised on the state’s interest in protecting maternal health.” June Med. Servs., LLC v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2018). When the Louisiana Senate Committee on Health and Welfare was considering the 5 Act, the committee “heard testimony from women who had experienced complications during abortions and had been treated harshly by the provider. Testimony also established numerous health and safety violations by Louisiana abortion clinics.” Id. at 791-92. Indeed, the testimony of courageous women who are willing to step out of the darkness cast by abortion and its supporters and to speak out against its harmful effects, thereby giving witness to the need for the protection of life, is exceedingly relevant. The purpose of this brief is to add additional voices to this discussion. As the Fifth Circuit also noted, “In addition to the concern for maternal health expressed at the hearing, Louisiana has an underlying interest in protecting unborn life,” citing to Louisiana’s “longstanding policy . that ‘the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person . entitled to the right to life.’” Id. at 792. Unfortunately, the voices of the unborn who were the victims of abortion have been silenced, requiring others, such as Amici, to be their voices. This too is an important purpose of this brief. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), this Court adopted the “undue burden” standard to balance the competing interests at stake in the abortion context. Under that standard, a law violates the Constitution “if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 878. However, as the Court observed, “not all regulations 6 must be deemed unwarranted.” Id. at 876. “The fact that a law which serves a valid purpose, one not designed to strike at the right itself, has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.” Id. at 874. Unquestionably, a state has a valid, indeed compelling, interest to promote public health and to secure the safety of its citizens, and this includes protecting those who may be harmed by abortion—a procedure that by its very nature is intended to destroy human life. As this Court further acknowledged, states also have a “legitimate goal of protecting the life of the unborn.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 883. As the record demonstrates, the stated and valid purpose of the challenged Act was to raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions and to protect the health and welfare of women seeking abortions. The effect of this law advances this legitimate purpose. Consequently, as this Court held in Casey, even if the challenged Act makes it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion, that is no basis to invalidate it. Casey, 505 U.S. at 874. The Fifth Circuit was correct in upholding the Act, and this Court should affirm. 7 II.