pro-life

Proposed Missouri Amendment 3 on November Ballot Would Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

nancyvalko abortion, chemical abortions, conscience rights, culture, health care reform, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, miscarriage, organ donation, pro-life, safeguards, transgender, transgender care

In a June 24, 2026 ACLU article titled “Fight for Abortion Rights Has Turned to States in Years Since Landmark Reproductive Rights Ruling, Breanna Diaz, writes that “Four years ago, the Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion. Since then, the fight has turned to the states.”

The ACLU also maintains that “Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade four years ago in the Dobbs v. Jackson case that ended the federal right to abortion, people across the country have felt the fallout, especially in the South and Midwest. Many have had to travel long distances to obtain abortion care in other states. Some have been denied urgently needed care at hospitals. Others have even lost their lives because of abortion bans.”

Although not perfect, I am proud that my state of Missouri now has now has Amendment 3, the “Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment“ is on the ballot in Missouri as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.[1]

According to Ballotpedia:


A “yes” vote supports amending the Missouri Constitution to:
:repeal the constitutional right to reproductive freedom, which voters ratified in 2024 and prohibit abortions except in cases of “medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest,” and permit abortions in cases of rape or incest only through 12 weeks of gestation; 
prohibit gender transition surgeries for minors, as well as the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments “unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition;” and make other changes.
A “no” vote opposes amending the Missouri Constitution, keeping the existing constitutional right to reproductive freedom, and not adding provisions that prohibit abortion and gender transition surgeries and procedures.

Ballotpedia states that:

“This amendment would repeal Amendment 3, which was passed by voters in 2024. It amended the state constitution, providing for the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including abortion.

The amendment would then add a new section that would prohibit abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. For cases of rape and incest, the abortion could only be performed before 12 weeks. It would prohibit abortions based on a fetal disability diagnosis, except in cases of fetal anomaly. It would require parental or guardian consent for minors seeking an abortion and prohibit fetal organ harvesting. The amendment would also provide for the ability of a woman to access healthcare in cases of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.[1]

State Sen. Brad Hudson (R-33), who supports HJR 73, said, “From constituents and individuals that I’ve been talking to about this issue, they want another opportunity to weigh in on this. They don’t feel like that they were given an option in Amendment 3 that accurately reflects who they are and where they are on the life issue.”[2]

Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action, who opposes the measure, said, “The majority of Missourians want to make their own decisions about health care without interference from prying politicians … We will not stand for more political games at the expense of the thousands of patients in Missouri who could finally access care they need without crossing state lines. Missouri voters will once again send a clear message that enough is enough.”[3]

Abortion is currently legal in Missouri up to the point of fetal viability, which is defined in Missouri law as “that stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems.”[4]

and:

“Missouri was one of 14 states that placed a constitutional amendment on a ballot to amend the state constitution to provide for the right to an abortion. The first three states to pass these amendments were California, Michigan, and Vermont in 2022, the same year that Roe v. Wade was overturned following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization U.S. Supreme Court decision. Out of the 14 states, voters passed right-to-abortion amendments in 11 of them, and rejected amendments in three — Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. After 2022, voters in one state — Nebraska — approved a measure to limit the timeframe during which an abortion can be performed.

With Missouri’s Amendment 3, this will be the first time voters will decide to repeal a right-to-abortion amendment.”

“The ballot measure would repeal Section 36 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution, and add a new section, Section 36a. The following underlined text would be added and struck-through text would be deleted”:

“Section 36(a).1. The state’s duty to protect public health and welfare includes protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. The state’s interest in regulating the practice of medicine is even greater in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty or in areas that raise grave moral and ethical concerns, including abortion and gender transition procedures.

2. An abortion may be performed or induced upon a woman in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. In the case of abortions performed or induced in cases of rape or incest, the abortion may be performed or induced no later than twelve weeks gestational age of the unborn child.

3. The general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother. These laws shall include, but not be limited to, laws requiring physicians providing abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; laws requiring facilities where abortions are performed or induced to be licensed and inspected for clean and safe conditions and adequate instruments to treat any emergencies arising from an abortion procedure; laws requiring physicians to perform a sufficient examination of the woman to determine the unborn child’s gestational age and any preexisting medical conditions that may influence the procedure; and laws requiring ultrasounds to be performed only by physicians or licensed medical technicians.

4. No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman based on a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating a disability in an unborn child, except in cases of a fetal anomaly.

5. No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.

6. Except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman without her voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion. In the case of a minor under the age of eighteen years who is not emancipated, no person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion, except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, unless the attending physician has obtained:

(1) the written consent of the minor and a parent or legal guardian; and(2) documentation of the consent is retained in the minor’s medical record. Licensed medical physicians shall be required to provide women with medically accurate information. The general assembly may enact laws to provide for the right of a minor to consent to an abortion as granted by a court order.

7. Fetal organ harvesting after an abortion is not permitted under any circumstances.

8. A woman’s ability to access health care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other medical emergencies shall not be infringed by the state.

9. No gender transition surgeries shall be knowingly performed on children under eighteen years of age, and no cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs shall be knowingly prescribed or administered for the purpose of gender transition to children under eighteen years of age. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the use of such surgeries, drugs, or hormones to treat children born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development or to treat any infection, injury, disease, or disorder unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.

10. Any action challenging the validity of any state law relating to reproductive health care shall be brought in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute does not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity, the party bringing the action shall file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the attorney general and the attorney general shall have the right to intervene in the litigation.

11. The general assembly shall have the authority to enact laws to carry out the provisions of this section.

12. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Cross-sex hormones”, testosterone, estrogen, or other androgens given to an individual in amounts that are greater or more potent than would normally occur naturally in a healthy individual of the same age and sex;

(2) “Fetal anomaly”, a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child’s gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible;

(3) “Fetal organ harvesting”, collection of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids, including any biological material, for the purpose of selling or collecting for scientific purposes, but shall not include the utilization of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids to determine the cause or causes of any anomaly, illness, death, or genetic condition of the unborn child, the paternity of the unborn child, or for law enforcement purposes;

(4) “Gender transition surgery”, a surgical procedure performed for the purpose of assisting an individual with identifying with and living as a gender different from his or her biological sex;

(5) “Medical emergency”, a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;

(6) “Puberty-blocking drugs”, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues or other synthetic drugs used to stop luteinizing hormone secretion and follicle stimulating hormone secretion, synthetic antiandrogen drugs to block the androgen receptor, or any other drug used to delay or suppress pubertal development in children for the purpose of assisting an individual with a gender transition;(7) “Reasonable medical judgment”, a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

13. All provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

It is expected that the vote will be close.

Share this:

California is Suing Christian nonprofits that Help Women Save Their Unborn Babies

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, bereavement, chemical abortions, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, culture, education, family, law, media, medical, medical ethics, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, safeguards

In a disturbing op-ed in the July 30, 2026 edition of the Wall Street Journal titled “California’s Case Against Second Chances,” Archbishop Salvatore of San Francisco and Bishop Michael C. Barber of Oakland write that “The State is suing Christian non-profits that help women save their unborn babies.”

The Bishops write:

“Elizabeth Barrett, a young college dropout in Southern California, swallowed a pill the local abortion clinic had given her—and then, almost immediately after, changed her mind. An online search for advice on how to undo the chemical abortion led her to Heartbeat International, a Christian nonprofit that refers women to licensed doctors for treatment. It worked. Ms. Barrett is the mother of a healthy girl.

The state of California wants to be sure that such things never happen again. In an extraordinary case now unfolding at trial in state court in Oakland, California’s attorney general seeks an injunction and up to $20 million in fines against Heartbeat International and another small pro-life Christian nonprofit, RealOptions. Their offense is telling women who regret swallowing the abortion pill that there is a medical treatment that can sometimes save their babies.

Consumer fraud, the prosecutors are calling it. Legal scholars call it an abuse of power. “This novel use of California’s commercial-fraud statute seems designed to intimidate nonprofit organizations that—with no hope of commercial gain—seek to educate the public about services that are lawful but contrary to the ideological preferences of the government,” says Michael McConnell, a professor who teaches free-speech law at Stanford.

California isn’t alone in attacking these Christian groups. New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has filed a similar lawsuit against Heartbeat International and other pregnancy centers. The Thomas More Society, a Catholic public-interest law firm, is pursuing separate federal cases challenging the constitutionality of these prosecutions in federal courts.

California’s attorney general has found no evidence that any woman has complained of harm by the defendants. That didn’t dissuade the state, which is marshaling its taxpayer-funded resources to shut these ministries down.

The state argues that because the nonprofits raise money from donors, they are engaged in commercial speech. If the government wins, doctors may still prescribe the medication, but no nonprofit can tell women the treatment exists—a novel legal theory that would vastly expand lawfare against those who hold views with which the government disagrees.

One wonders whether the pro-abortion lobby has really thought this through. The prosecution’s theory “would expose any nonprofit in America” to “the same government overreach,” Paul Jonna, an attorney from the Thomas More Society, said in a news release. Don’t they worry that some future state attorney general in Mississippi might use similar tactics to go after Planned Parenthood?

Reading the depositions of these women is a painful experience. To be a Catholic priest these days, as we both are, is to have heard many similar stories of women who felt pressured to have an abortion they didn’t want.

Everyone should oppose this. But these women especially need support from the religious—those who hold that creation in God’s image means life is endowed with a dignity that can’t be trampled by a government determined to punish those who oppose unquestioned abortion.

Consider just the case of Ms. Barrett. In 2023, she was struggling financially, and she and her live-in boyfriend were experiencing increasing strain in their relationship. When she learned she was pregnant, “I panicked at the thought of spending 18 years in family court,” Ms. Barrett testified. She “struggled to imagine where I would be able to find funds to cover child-care costs.”

At the clinic, she told staff she was scared and thought she might want to keep her baby, hoping to talk through her options. “I was a huge supporter and donor to Planned Parenthood at the time,” she said. “I thought for sure that staff at the clinic would help me out.” Instead they urged her to take the abortion pill that day and warned that if she delayed, she might not be able to get another appointment. “With that scheduling pressure and overwhelmed by misgivings about getting the abortion—what if I wanted to proceed but couldn’t later?—I took the first of two pills for a chemical abortion.”

But before she left the clinic, her boyfriend texted her saying he wanted to keep the baby and raise their child together. That changed everything. So began a frantic search for anything to stop the abortion: “I was desperate, borderline hysterical, and willing to try just about anything.” Ms. Barrett found Heartbeat International online. Within an hour, she had a clinic appointment with a licensed California doctor to reverse her abortion pill. She’s a mother today thanks to this Christian nonprofit and its donors.

California v. Heartbeat International and RealOptions is a rare case that should bring together both sides of the abortion debate. In particular, it tests the souls of those who claim the platform of “pro-choice.” What kind of people see a pregnant woman who wants to reverse the effects of an abortion pill and think, “Let’s punish the nonprofits that informed her she has a choice”?

Are they really pro-choice, or do they just like killing?

Archbishop Cordileone is archbishop of San Francisco. Bishop Barber is bishop of Oakland.“

CONCLUSION

It is not just abortion clinics, it is also about teleheath abortions.

As I wrote June 4, 2026,

New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated

 nancyvalko abortion, chemical abortions, education, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, safeguards

As a new June 4, 2026, National Right to Life article by Michael New titled “New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated” just reported:

“Last week, the Charlotte Lozier Institute released a study by research associate Mia Steupert showing that organizations selling chemical abortion pills online are largely unregulated. Specifically, these organizations often fail to comply with existing laws, FDA regulations, and basic health and safety standards. The study considered entities that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. The study also considered overseas and online entities that sell abortion pills.

Here are some of the specifics. The Lozier study identified 80 organizations that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. Thirty-eight of these organizations are online only, and 42 are hybrid brick-and-mortar and online facilities. Again, these facilities are technically subject to FDA regulations. The study, however, provides strong evidence that these facilities frequently violate FDA policies, states’ pro-life laws, and basic health standards:

  • Only 15 of 80 report they will adhere to FDA rules and not ship abortion pills to pregnant women after 70 days gestation.
  • 43 of the 80 either had no age requirement for the woman obtaining abortion pills or did not publish this information. This would put them in violation of state parental involvement laws.
  • Only 39 of the 80 formally required women to take part in a video call to discuss their eligibility for taking abortion drugs.
  • Only 9 of 80 require that all women submit a form of identification before obtaining abortion pills. One additional organization required a form of identification only from women living in certain states.
  • Only 16 of 80 require a virtual follow-up after the abortion has taken place.“

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, unregulated telehealth abortions have posed a serious challenge to the pro-life movement. These telehealth abortions undermine and weaken many of the strong state-level pro-life laws that have been enacted post-Dobbs. This new Lozier study highlights the extent to which chemical abortions are largely unregulated, posing serious public health concerns. The study also details ongoing litigation where women unknowingly took chemical abortion pills because their partners wanted their pregnancies terminated. Had appropriate regulations and safeguards been in effect, these women and their preborn children would have been protected.

The Lozier study identifies several policy tools that could be used to ban or limit telehealth abortions. The FDA could restore the rules that existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and require women obtaining chemical abortions to have an in-person meeting with a health-care professional. Multiple lawsuits are being filed by various state attorneys general, arguing that the new rules violate the FDA’s Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Comstock Act, which prevents abortifacients from being sent through the mail, could be enforced.

This important Lozier study demonstrates that stopping telehealth abortions should remain a top priority for pro-lifers.

This appeared at National Review Online and is posted with the author’s permission.“

Share this:

s

s

ABORTION PILLS HEAD TO THE SUPREME COURT

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, law, medical abortion, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life, safeguards

In a May 7, 2026 article in First Things by Jonathan Van Maren titled “Abortion Pills Head to the Supreme Court” , Mr. Von Maren states:

“Two judicial rulings over Mifepristone this month have set the stage for the most important legal battle over abortion since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022—and the fight has exposed the growing divide between the pro-life movement and the Trump administration.

He explains:

“Central to this legal battle is the Biden administration’s decision to use the pretext of the COVID pandemic to temporarily suspend the requirement that abortion pills be dispensed in person by a certified healthcare provider or clinic in 2021; the change was made permanent in 2023. This created a massive mail-order market that has sent abortion pills flowing into states with pro-life laws, triggering a series of lawsuits. 

Louisiana launched a lawsuit last year challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision and arguing that the changes both lacked sufficient safety data and enable illegal abortions in their state, which has some of the most comprehensive pro-life protections in the country. 

On May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Louisiana that the mail-order abortion pills coming across state lines were a violation of the state’s pro-life laws. The court issued a temporary stay order in State of Louisiana v. FDA, reinstating the FDA’s pre-2021 requirement. The decision paused mail-order access to abortion drugs across the country.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is [a] human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the court’s decision states. The decision also notes that the FDA has admitted “it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” and that Louisiana’s case was “strong.” 

Two pharmaceutical companies that produce the abortion pill, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, swiftly petitioned the Supreme Court for emergency relief to restore access to the drugs, arguing that the stay would create chaos. On May 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order, temporarily restoring telehealth and mail-order access until at least May 11 as the Supreme Court considers the case further.

Pro-life leaders have been exultant about the Fifth Circuit’s decision and optimistic that the Supreme Court’s administrative stay will be ultimately temporary. “Women and children suffer and state sovereignty is violated every day the FDA allows abortion drugs to flood the mail—harms that are no mere accident, but predictable outcomes of the FDA’s unscientific removal of safeguards like in-person doctor visits,” stated Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

In response to the Supreme Court’s stay, Alliance Defending Freedom—which joined Louisiana’s challenge to the FDA—was emphatic. “This is NOT a reversal of Friday’s decision,” ADF said in a statement. “Rather, it’s the run-of-the-mill pause that the Justices typically use to consider the issues raised in an emergency application. . . . We respect the Court’s desire to have time to consider the issues and will continue our fight to uphold this victory.”

Repealing the FDA’s 2023 change has become the pro-life movement’s primary goal since Dobbs. Thirteen states have strong pro-life protections for unborn children, but mail-order abortion pills have essentially nullified these protections; according to the Guttmacher Institute, 63 percent of abortions in 2023 (the latest year for which national data is available) were pill abortions. The abortion rate is rising for the first time in decades, and a quarter of abortions are facilitated by telehealth services.

Despite this, the second Trump administration has actively opposed the pro-life movement’s attempts to restore the pre-2021 status quo. The Trump Department of Justice has continued the Biden policy of defending the FDA against state-led lawsuits against the abortion pill, asking for dismissals or pauses as the FDA conducts a safety review of mifepristone. In the meantime, the Trump administration approved another generic abortion pill in October 2024. 

In sharp contrast to the strong record of the first administration, Trump’s approach this time around has been to keep the pro-life movement in the tent but off the platform. In 2024, the Trump campaign stripped the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform for the first time in decades; during the campaign, Trump stated that he supported access to the abortion pill. Vice President JD Vance has attended the March for Life twice to shore up support, but pro-life leaders long muted in their criticisms are now openly expressing their frustration with the administration. 

“Restore the in-person dispensing by a doctor of these drugs!” Dannenfelser told a protest outside the HHS department in January. “What a modest thing to do for the women and children of America. Restore that to the Trump 1 policy! The Biden COVID-era abortion drug policy has led to devastating moments of death for children and coercion and death for women. . . . Abortions have gone up since Dobbs, not down!”

She was blunter speaking to the Wall Street Journal last week. “Trump is the problem. The president is the problem.”

CONCLUSION

I have been writing about the dangers of the abortion pills in posts like the February 16, 2017, post “Are Mail Order Abortions Coming? my September 21 2019 post “Press Release: The National Association of Pro-life Nurses On Federal Judge Blocking North Dakota Law Informing Women of Abortion Pill Rescue Reversal” and my February 26, 2026, post “Safer Than Tylenol” is Deliberate Medical Abortion Disinformation.

Especially as nurses, we need to inform the public!

Share this:

Forgiveness is a Decision, Not a Feeling

nancyvalko faith, faith and forgiveness, law, mental health, pro-life

I was shocked when I turned on the tv September 10, 2025 and saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, on September 10, 2025 debate while speaking at Utah Valley University on the first stop this fall of his “The American Comeback Tour,” which invited students on college campuses to debate hot-button issues.

I admired the 31-year-old’s efforts to engage college students and others in open and respectful debate about some of the most divisive issues roiling politics today.

As Emily Standley Allard wrote for MSN:

“(h)e built a political platform that resonated deeply with young conservatives while provoking equally strong opposition from progressives.

Kirk presented himself as a combatant in America’s culture wars, speaking directly to students, churchgoers, and millions of podcast listeners about what he considered existential battles over freedom, faith, and America’s future. “

Since then, his wife, Erica Kirk, has become the head of Turning Point USA while raising their two young children.

Erica Kirk’s Response to Her Husband’s Murder

As The Hill reported:

“I’ve had so many people ask, ‘Do you feel anger toward this man? Like, do you want to seek the death penalty?” Kirk said. “I’ll be honest. I told our lawyer, I want the government to decide this. I do not want that man’s blood on my ledger.”

Kirk reiterated that message during her eulogy on Sunday. The 36-year-old received a lengthy standing ovation when she was called to the stage, and was emotional throughout her remarks.”

“Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, said Sunday that she forgives the man accused of killing her husband.

“On the cross, our savior said, ‘Father, forgive them. For they do not know what they do.’ That man. That young man. I forgive him,” Erika Kirk said at her husband’s memorial, with her voice softening and tears streaming down her face.

“The answer to hate is not hate,” she said. “The answer we know from the Gospel is love, and always love.”

CONCLUSION

Erica Kirk’s forgiveness of her husband’s killer shocked many people, but I understand the power of forgiveness.

In 1983, we lost a daughter with Down syndrome and a severe heart defect, and my husband had a breakdown and was hospitalized several times.

I thought he was getting better, but in 1987, my three children and I returned home from church, and he was gone. I discovered that he had taken all our money and fled to Illinois.

Our 10-year-old son was devastated and said, “I will never forgive him!”

I told him that he will and he must. He was shocked and asked me if I could forgive him.

“I already have”, I told him.

I explained that forgiveness is a decision, not a feeling, and that refusing to forgive his father would hurt him more. Faith and forgiveness would heal all of us.

It was a difficult time for all three children with a divorce, selling our house, moving to another home, and the children going to new schools- not to mention my having to go back to working as a nurse because Missouri did not cross state lines to enforce child support.

However, I did allow the children to visit with their father with a guardian supervising.

I was so happy when my son eventually told me that he was starting to feel forgiveness in his heart! He was healing!

Although my ex-husband never got better mentally and eventually died, we visited him in his last days, and that was a blessing for all of us!

Thank you, Erica Kirk, for your example of faith and forgiveness!

Share this:

About Nancy Valko, RN ALNCJune 18, 2015nancyvalko
Doctors Face Scrutiny About Defining Brain DeathJune 1, 2018nancyvalko
My testimony for Simon's LawFebruary 18, 2016nancyvalko

Abortion pills: Where are they legal and illegal?

nancyvalko abortion, Drugs, education, law, medical abortion, miscarriage, nursing, pro-life

In a January 8, 2025, article by the Catholic News Agency titled Abortion pills: Where are they legal and illegal?, author Jonah McKeown writes:

“As states continue to legislate on abortion in the post-Roe v. Wade landscape, a major point of contention as a new presidential administration takes office is the two-drug medication abortion regimen, commonly referred to as the abortion pill.

Abortions done via medication, also called chemical abortions, currently account for about half of the abortions that are done in the United States every year. However, many states restrict the use of abortion pills, specifically the first drug in the two-drug regimen, mifepristone. (Emphasis added)”

Take a look at the map below to see where abortion pills are legal, and where they aren’t:

Green is illegal, yellow is limited, and red is legal (go to Abortion pills: Where are they legal and illegal? to click on each state’s specific law)

As the author states:

“At the federal level, mifepristone is approved to abort an unborn child up to 10 weeks’ gestation, having been first approved for such use in 2000. 

The drug kills the child by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients. A second pill, misoprostol, is taken between 24 to 48 hours after mifepristone to induce contractions and expel the child’s body.

Several states, most of which have some pro-life laws in place, have also passed restrictions on abortion pills designed to protect women, including requirements that only physicians may dispense them. These states include Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah. (Emphasis added)”

and

“A large number of states — most of them concentrated in a contiguous cluster in the South and Midwest — ban abortion in most cases but provide exceptions in cases where the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. In these states, access to abortion pills is likely to be very limited or prohibited entirely. 

States with total bans on abortion pills include Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. “

However, as Mr. McKeown. also writes,

” just because these states have bans on abortion pills in place does not mean the drugs are not accessible; women in those states can still receive them in the mail. Under then-President Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the FDA was given the ability to distribute the drug via mail. The administration of President Joe Biden eventually solidified the practice as a norm in 2023. (Emphasis added)

A group of state attorneys general, led by Missouri, is currently suing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its deregulation of the drug, arguing that abortion drugs have been “flooding states like Missouri and Idaho [where abortion is otherwise regulated] and sending women in these states to the emergency room.”

In addition, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently filed a lawsuit against an abortionist in New York, alleging that she illegally provided abortion drugs to a woman in Texas, which killed the unborn child and caused serious health complications for the mother.”

Sadly, as Mr. McKeown writes:

President-elect Trump has committed to keeping abortion pills accessible during his second term — a major disappointment for pro-life advocates, who have urged Trump to use the FDA’s power to enforce a Comstock Act prohibition on the delivery of “obscene” and “vile” products through the mail, which includes the delivery of anything designed to produce an abortion.”

CONCLUSION

As I wrote in my June 16, 2024 blog “The Supreme Court Rejects Challenge by Pro-life Doctors on Abortion Pill“:

“As Life News reported on June 13, 2024:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, meaning the abortion drug will be widely available to continue killing babies and injuring doctors nationwide.

The 9-0 decision says the pro-life doctors who brought the case do not have standing – they were not injured, and so the court does not intervene. That’s even though they sued on behalf of women who were injured by the abortion drug by the thousands – including women who have been killed.” (Emphasis added)”

I have a personal interest in this because I had an unwed daughter who became pregnant and started bleeding without telling me because of embarrassment.

She went to a local ER, where the doctors said she was just having a miscarriage and sent her home.

When the pain and bleeding increased, she called me. I took her back to the ER to demand an ultrasound.

As I suspected as a nurse, her pregnancy was ectopic and emergency surgery was performed.

Afterward, the surgeon showed me the picture he had taken (unasked) during the surgery to remove the then-deceased first-trimester baby, my grandchild. The picture was personally so sad to see but I was comforted that the surgeon cared enough to take a picture of this tiny person and show respect.

We need more respect and help for women with an unexpected pregnancy and their babies than a pill without medical safeguards!”

Related

“Safer Than Tylenol” is Deliberate Medical Abortion Disinformation February 26, 2023

Planned Parenthood Sues Kansas to Challenge a New State Law Requiring Abortion Reversal Information to be Provided Before Abortion June 12, 2023

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES MAY DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, law, media, medical, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

Supreme Court clears way for states to kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid – POLITICO

A stunning 6-3 Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2025 has now cleared the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, concluding that federal law doesn’t allow health care providers or patients to sue if a state violates a provision of federal law guaranteeing the Medicaid patients can visit their preferred provider.

According to Politico:

“The decision rejected a challenge to South Carolina’s 2018 expulsion of Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. It will likely allow other conservative states to similarly expel reproductive and sexual health clinics — shrinking the already narrow network of providers available in the health insurance program for low-income Americans.”

and

“Defunding” Planned Parenthood is a goal of many conservatives, who object to its abortion services. Federal law has long banned federal money from being used for abortions. But Planned Parenthood clinics provide many other health care services that are typically eligible for payment under Medicaid.

Thursday’s ruling will make it easier for states to deprive Planned Parenthood — and other clinics that provide abortions — from receiving Medicaid payments for any of their non-abortion-related care.”

BACKGROUND

As I wrote in my December 14, 2018 blog, “Why is the US Supreme Court Ducking the Issue of States Defunding Planned Parenthood?”:

“Most of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is from Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care, and some is from Title X. At least 60% of Planned Parenthood patients rely on public health programs like Medicaid and Title X for preventive and primary care.” (Emphasis added)

According to a Lozier Institute Report, in its latest report 2016-2017, Planned Parenthood received “$543.7 million in funds from all levels of government in that fiscal year…primarily from the Medicaid program”. (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ironically, although the brief by Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast  to the Supreme Court insisted that their clinics “..provide essential medical care to thousands of low-income Louisiana residents through Medicaid” and “offer a range of services, including annual physical exams, screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer, contraception, pregnancy testing and counseling, and other preventative health services”, the reality is that there are many more places, such as federally qualified community health centers (which do not provide abortions) that provide more comprehensive health care services than those offered by Planned Parenthood.

On a personal note, several years ago my late daughter Marie secretly went to a Planned Parenthood clinic for a possible sexually transmitted disease. She finally admitted this to me when her symptoms grew worse. I immediately took her to my own gynecologist who had to perform surgery to remove part of her cervix to deal with the damage.

Planned Parenthood had missed the diagnosis.

MY "WORST" PATIENT

nancyvalko culture, faith, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

I was a newly divorced mother of three young children when I returned to nursing to support our little family.

I had been a happily stay-at-home mom for years until my husband had a mental breakdown, took all our money, and fled the state after one of our children died, but I was grateful to find a job on an oncology unit and some childcare.

I was a little nervous about being a working nurse again, but when I started my first day back, I was startled by loud shouting from a patient’s room, even through the door was closed.

I asked what was going on and the other nurses told me that the patient was abusive and shouting all the time, even though he didn’t seem in pain.

The other nurses said they had all agreed to change nurses every day because he was so nasty and they told me I was going to be assigned to him later.

I read the man’s chart and talked to the man’s doctor to ask him what was going on. I was shocked when the doctor said he thought the man was “evil”! I asked the doctor “Like Hannibal Lecter in the movie Silence of the Lambs?” He said yes and I felt a cold chill.

So I made a plan.

When my turn came up to care for the man, I asked to have him all week on the night shift. “No problem!”, the other nurses said.

The first night, the man didn’t sleep and kept shouting loudly. He ignored my questioning so I sat next to his bed and tried to understand what he was shouting.

I discovered that he was enraged and cursing God Himself. I listened quietly until he stopped.

After a while, I held his hand and every time he started to yell again, I replied “God still loves you” over and over until he eventually he fell asleep,

This went on night after night until one night he stopped and slept through the night.

The next day, he woke up and said he wanted to take a walk so I took him to the hallway just as the day shift came in.

The man smiled at them and said “Good morning, ladies!” Everyone was stunned but his whole attitude changed from then on.

Weeks later, I met a student nurse who asked how he was doing. She said she had made a big mistake with his portacath IV access and had to have it replaced surgically. She was devastated but when she apologized, he told her not to worry and that he was fine.

The student told me that she was the nicest patient she ever had!

I told her my story and said that sensitively caring for the most difficult patients can be the greatest reward of all!

Share this:

Reblog

Like

FEEDING IS NOT EXTRAORDINARY CARE-- DECISION IN THE NANCY CRUZAN CASE ADDS TO THE LIST OF EXPENDABLE PEOPLE

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain injury, conscience rights, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, futility, law, Living wills, medical, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

Before the famous Terri Schiavo food and water case gained national attention 20 years ago, Dr. Harvath and I wrote this Op-Ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (no longer online) about the Nancy Cruzan casw, an earlier case of withdrawing food and water from a “so-called “vegetative state”‘ My family was furious when it was pusblished and told me that I was being “mean” to the family.

Unfortunately, such removal has become common and even recently, has resulted in a brother’s death.

Not surprisingly, so-called “assisted suicide” is now allowed in many states and countries

Nancy Valko, RN

Here is our op-ed:
Friday, August 12, 1988
FEEDING IS NOT EXTRAORDINARY CARE– DECISION IN THE NANCY CRUZAN CASE ADDS TO THE LIST OF EXPENDABLE PEOPLE

By Susan Harvath and Nancy Guilfoy Valko                                                                    

Just a few years ago the Missouri Legislature passed a ”living will” law that specifically excluded food and water from the kinds of care that may be withdrawn from a patient. In 1984, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that legislation should ”recognize the presumption that certain basic measures such as nursing care, hydration, nourishment and the like must be maintained out of respect for the human dignity of every patient.”

Therefore, it is hoped that the Missouri Court of Appeals will overturn the recent Circuit Court decision that would deny tube feedings for Nancy Cruzan, a severely disabled woman cared for at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center. The anguish felt by the Cruzan family, which initiated the suit, is understandable. However, directly causing the death of an innocent person – even for reasons of mercy – violates that person’s basic human rights.

The Cruzan case is perceived by many to be an issue of allowing a person to die. Cruzan has been categorized by some experts as being in a ”persistent vegetative state,” an unfortunate and imprecise term at best. However, she is not dying or brain-dead. Rather, she is severely disabled from brain damage and needs no special technology to survive. Withdrawing her feeding tube would not ”allow” her to die – it would ”force” her to die. She would not die from her injuries, but rather from starvation and dehydration.

Also, starvation and dehydration cause a protracted, agonizing death in a fully conscious person. Some experts have stated that Cruzan would feel no pain if her feedings were stopped. Yet Cruzan’s nurses have testified that she has cried, smiled and even laughed in response to stimuli.

The possibility of pain during the length of time before death occurs has led some to propose lethal injections as a more ”humane” way to cause death than starvation. The passive euthanasia of withdrawing feeding logically leads to active euthanasia by injection or other means. Both are unacceptable.

A recent trend has been to classify tube feedings as medical treatment. However, unlike other medical treatments, denial of food from any person (sick or healthy, in or out of coma) will always result in that person’s death.

Ethically, treatments may be withdrawn if they are useless or burdensome to the patient. However, tube feedings are not excessively expensive or burdensome to the patient and do maintain life and prevent the discomfort of hunger and thirst. In deciding what treatment may ethically be withdrawn one must be careful to judge the treatment itself, not the ”quality” of the patient’s life. A person’s limitations do not decrease a person’s humanity or worth.

In the past few years, we have seen many court cases similar to Cruzan’s in other states. Some have involved people less severely disabled than Cruzan. A recent case in North Dakota resulted in a judgment that even feedings by mouth may be stopped. In most cases, it is not the patient who requests that feedings be stopped but rather a third party, usually a family member. Often, as in the Nancy Cruzan case, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the patient would even want the feedings stopped.

Some courts have gone even further and have stated that third parties do not need the approval of a court before a patient’s food and water is withdrawn unless there is disagreement, for example, among family members. This trend has unfortunate implications for all people with mental impairments.

There is a vast difference between not prolonging dying and causing death. In the last two decades, we have seen killing promoted as a humane and compassionate response to unwanted unborn children, newborns with handicaps, and the terminally ill. Let us not add a new category of people (the non-dying, severely disabled) to the list of expendable human lives.

Nancy Guilfoy Valko, R.N., is co-chairperson, and Sue Harvath is program director of the St. Louis Archdiocesan Pro-Life Committee.

Shocking New York Times Article Shows Planned Parenthood in Crisis

nancyvalko abortion, culture, law, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

In a shocking February 15, 2025, New York Times article titled A Crisis at Planned Parenthood: What to Know, author Katie Benner writes that “Planned Parenthood clinics around the country are facing complaints of substandard health care and poor morale amid chronic funding problems, a New York Times investigation found.” (Emphasis added)

She also writes that:

“While Planned Parenthood is synonymous with abortion, the organization also provides basic health care to millions of​ Americans who have few other options. Financial strains now undermine those services.

A New York Times review found that the clinics have been in decline for decades, undermined by structural and political headwinds and left to make do as national leaders prioritized the fight for abortion rights over finding a more sustainable way to fund health care. (Emphasis added)

Planned Parenthood’s health care operation has shrunk from a high of 5 million patients served across 900 clinics in the 1990s to 2.1 million patients and 600 clinics today, with staff members complaining that patient care is compromised by low salaries, chronic understaffing, high turnover, inadequate training and aging facilities.” (Emphasis added)

Katie Benner also writes: “Here are four takeaways from the reporting:

“Planned Parenthood may need structural reform

Few people outside the organization understand that there is a significant difference between the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the national office that most people associate with the brand, and the 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates located across the country. The national office does not provide health care. Rather, it funds legal, political, and public opinion work that supports abortion rights. The clinics are run by the affiliates, which are stand-alone nonprofit organizations.

The affiliates have been buffeted for years by political challenges that hurt their ability to raise the money necessary to cover procedures that patients cannot afford.

For the past two decades, leaders say they had to prioritize the fight for abortion rights over clinics because the political fight was fundamental to the organization’s ability to operate. They argue that the organization managed to deliver quality health care, despite increasing financial constraints. Yet clinics have degraded over time.” (All emphasis added)

Clinics nationwide face financial problems

“While affiliates in more liberal states like New York and California have had an easier time fund-raising than their counterparts in states with a strong anti-abortion sentiment, rising health care costs and the lingering effects of the pandemic have taken a financial toll on all clinics. Planned Parenthood of Greater New York — one of the few places where abortion is still legal up to 24 weeks — said that a budget shortfall would force it to restrict later-term abortion services, effectively implementing a 20-week abortion ban. (All emphasis added)

Planned Parenthood of Northern California made a hard funding choice “last March when it ended a prenatal care program that served 200 to 250 low-income women a month. And Planned Parenthood of Northern New England expects to run an $8 million deficit over the next three years.

While affiliates in more liberal states like New York and California have had an easier time fund-raising financial toll on all clinics. Planned Parenthood of Greater New York — one of the few places where abortion is still legal up to 24 weeks — said that a budget shortfall would force it to restrict later term abortion services, effectively implementing a 20-week abortion ban.

Planned Parenthood of Northern California made a hard funding choice last March when it ended a prenatal care program that served 200 to 250 low-income women a month. And Planned Parenthood of Northern New England expects to run an $8 million deficit over the next three years.” (All emphasis added)

Patients have felt the effects

“Patients and employees said that clinics are operating like “ a conveyor belt” for patients, leading to botched IUD placements and abortions, patients prepped for the wrong procedures, and other errors, according to legal filings, complaints and interviews. (All emphasis added)

Planned Parenthood has been accused of improperly implanting a birth control device and causing nerve damage; inserting an IUD in a woman who was four months pregnant, and failing to upload sexually transmitted infection test results into charts, leading patients to wrongly believe that their results were negative.”

Employees are feeling the pressure

“Employees said there has been constant pressure to more than double the number of patients seen from the present 2.1 million, to help bring in more revenues, with management asking staff to see more than four patients an hour. That is in line with a trend in health care, widely unpopular with both patients and doctors, to keep primary care visits to about 15 minutes. But clinic staff members said that they needed more than 10 to 15 minutes to care for patients who often face literacy and language barriers or face social ills like housing insecurity, abuse and poverty.

Staff members who have decried the conditions are beginning to unionize to push back on demands that they say undermine Planned Parenthood’s mission.”

CONCLUSION

Although abortion is supposed to be only about a woman’s right to choose, the repercussions for all involved are devastating. Abortion is not the answer and we all need to offer help and support to desperate women and their families.

Trump Pardons 23 Pro-Life Activists the Day before the March for Life

nancyvalko abortion, end-of-life, medical ethics, mental health, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, suicide

In a January 23, 2025 article in the New York Post titled “Trump pardons ‘peaceful’ pro-lifers imprisoned for protesting outside abortion clinics” states:

” President Trump pardoned nearly two dozen pro-life activists Thursday who were convicted under a federal law of illegally trying to block abortion clinic entrances or otherwise keep women from undergoing the procedure.

The pardons, Trump said in the Oval Office, will go to 23 “peaceful protestors” who were prosecuted under the Biden administration. He did not reveal the names of those who will be pardoned. 

“Twenty-three people were prosecuted who should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted,” the president said. “This is a great honor to sign this.”

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, enacted in 1994 by former President Bill Clinton, prohibits use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate or otherwise interfere with “any class of persons [in] obtaining or providing reproductive health services.”

The law also has the same stipulations allowing free access to places of worship — but conservatives say Democratic administrations have been more interested in prosecuting abortion clinic obstruction.”

MY FIRST TIME AT AN ABORTION CLINIC

I was a new nurse when Roe v Wade legalized abortion.

I was shocked and saddened while my other medical colleagues thought this was great.

“What would you do if you found out you were pregnant?”, they asked.
I told them I would have the baby and consider adoption. They thought that was crazy.

I later joined the St. Lous Archdiocese Pro-Life Commitee, the first in the US, and donated items to the Birthright organization that offers “free, confidential resources to any woman regardless of age, race, circumstances, religion, marital status or financial situation.”

In 1987, I was invited to join a group holding signs outside the Planned Parenthood Clinic in St. Louis offering information and help to the women entering. I was nervous walking with my then 2-year-old daughter but there were strict rules about staying on the sidewalk and I was relieved to see the signs with phone numbers and offers to help the women entering the clinic.

But suddenly my 2-year-old daughter dropped my hand and ran to play on the grass in front of the clinic. I panicked, picking her up and running to the sidewalk. I had heard that we could be arrested. Luckily, we weren’t.

CONCLUSION

I am glad President Trump pardoned those peaceful pro-life people but being pro-life is about more than picketing.

Every pro-life person I know is also a person who reaches out to anyone in need.

I know I have been blessed by helping single moms in difficult circumstances, families caring for children with disabilities, people considering suicide, women regretting their abortion, older people facing their impending death, and others.

Being pro-life is not just about ending the horror of legalized abortion but rather about cherishing and caring for all lives!

That is why I am so proud of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses’ button that simply says “I care”.