Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Broken down truck outside a closed Planned Parenthood
Broken down truck outside a closed Planned Parenthood
AlbertHerring / Flickr

Abortion

Abortion Clinics In 8 States To Close, Move After Roe v. Wade Ruling

Abortion providers are closing their doors after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court

Abortion clinics in at least eight states plan to either close their doors or relocate to a more friendly state after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not ban abortion nationwide, but rather returns the issue to the state level, where legislatures led by Democrats and Republicans will likely govern according to the wishes of their constituents.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, at least 13 states had “trigger laws” designed to immediately outlaw abortion should Roe be overturned, reported Axios, meaning around 200 clinics across the country will shut down. These include locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Planned Parenthood, which controversially provides abortions at facilities that receive taxpayer funding, has already announced it will pause operations in Arkansas and Wisconsin.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has already given a statewide cease and desist notice to abortion providers, with those in the state put on notice to close up shop. Similarly, Louisiana State Rep. Mandie Landry tweeted that all three abortion providers in the state had ceased operations.

In Texas, reports the Texas Tribune, an abortion group that ran four clinics across the state said it will stop providing those services.

South Dakota’s final operating abortion clinic closed operations the week before Roe v. Wade was overturned, reported Axios.

In neighboring North Dakota, the state’s sole remaining abortion clinic is packing up and moving to nearby Minnesota, reported CNN. North Dakotans will have to cross state lines for their abortions.

Related  TUCKER: Dems 'Euthanizing' Biden Over Doc Scandal Is Like 'Arresting El Chapo For Expired Plates'

Previously, Valiant News reported that as many as 26 states could move to restrict abortion or make it illegal now that Roe v. Wade is repealed.

26 states may ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned

Roe v. Wade was overturned last week in a 5-4 decision led by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. Three of the five judges who voted to overturn the controversial 1973 privacy case were appointed by 45th President Donald Trump.

Dozens were arrested on Friday night and into Saturday morning as protests gripped the nation’s largest cities and demonstrators occasionally clashed with police.

Avatar
Written By

Tom Pappert is the Editor-in-Chief of Valiant News. He has worked in political news and commentary since 2015, when he began supporting Trump on a left wing college campus. You can follow him on Twitter @realTomPappert, on Gab @realGodEmperorTrump, on Facebook at Tom Pappert, or see his other social media by visiting tompappert.com. Tips can be sent securely to [email protected].

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Avatar

    Nick1

    June 26, 2022 at 7:10 am

    Most of these libs have no clue why Planned Parenthood was formed or why their offices are loacted where they are.
    And what do they think acting like lunatics is doing for their “cause”.
    Vote for us late term baby Killers? Ignore our crime, inflation, CRT, and no borders as just a few examples.
    One of the few Countries that permits late term, others being China and N. Korea.

  2. Avatar

    JOHN MAYOR

    June 26, 2022 at 12:34 pm

    In the New Testament’s Book of Romans Chapter 13: 1 and 2, we read the following:…
    .
    1) Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [NIV]
    .
    To the matter… for TRUE Christians, it is clear that we are to be subject to that which is in authority. But, it’s also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country– at least!– is a country’s God-allowed respective national constitution!… and which– invariably!– contains Rights and Freedoms (e.g., Freedom of Expression, Press Freedom, Life, Security of the Person and FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS… BUT, ET CETERA!). And to resist such… in keeping with Romans 13: 1 and 2!… IS TO RESIST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GRANTED TO A COUNTRY’S PEOPLE THROUGH GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY; AND THEREBY, TO RESIST GOD AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT! And in addition to the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of our national constitutions, is the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)… the signatories to which, are available for all too see.
    .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Mark Chapter 3: 23 to 27, we read the following:…
    .
    23) So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24) If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25) If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26) And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27) In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house…” [NIV]
    .
    Reader… and if I may!… let me offer up juxtaposed analogous “relevant arguments” and translations of Christ’s words conveyed in Mark 3…
    .
    1) How can Constitutional Paramountcy drive out Constitutional Paramountcy? 2) If a Constitution’s words be RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE in the context of it’s̲ entirety, that Constitution can’t stand. 3) If a Government is divided against itself, that Government can’t stand. 4) If a President opposes one’s self and is divided, such a soul can’t stand; that soul’s end has come. 5) In truth, no one can defeat a strong philosophy’s premise without first binding it’s̲ premise. Then one can defeat the strong philosophy’s premise.
    .
    To close, in keeping with a P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF A CONSTITUTION, A CONSTITUTION THAT CAN’T AVER NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL CITIZENS WITHIN THE PURVIEW/ SCOPE OF IT’S̲ MANDATE IS BASED UPON A RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE PREMISE… AND SO AND THUS, IF LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PURVIEW/ SCOPE OF NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS D̲E̲L̲I̲M̲I̲T̲S̲ NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL– AND THE CONSTITUTION, IN FACT, SUPPORTS SUCH A DELIMITATION!– THEN THAT CONSTITUTION’S “EGALITARIAN PREMISE” IS FAULTY, AND NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS CAN’T BE REALIZED; AND SO AND THUS, A CONSTITUTION’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY (GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY!) WOULD BE “SOMEONE’S” RUSEFUL (OR “INADVERTENT”) DEFERENCE TO LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE DIVISIONS! Therefore… and to contrast the immediately aforenoted P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲M̲I̲S̲E̲ of a Godly-inspired Constitution… the problem with returning this present Abortion item over to State Legislatures and Legislators for legislative drafting, is that NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS & BENEFITS will– by COMPARTMENTALIZED DEFAULT!– be nearly impossible to uphold. The Constitution’s “egalitarian premise”– GOD’S EGALITARIAN PREMISE!– will be nearly impossible to uphold. And therewith, VIRTUALLY ENTRENCHING A DIVIDED COUNTRY OVER A CONCERN THAT/ WHICH WILL FOSTER CONTINUED THREATS TO NATIONAL UNITY AND HARMONY– PITTING STATE INTERESTS AGAINST STATE INTERESTS!… AND, GIVING DEFERENCE TO SOME, WHO HOLD THAT AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION IS GOVERNED BY THE, “FEDERALIST PAPERS”!
    .
    Do you understand me reader? Either the SUPREME U.S. Constitution– GOD’S CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME AUTHORITY!– is based upon a P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW (E.G., THE SCOTUS!) FOR ALL PEOPLE WITHIN THE PURVIEW/ SCOPE OF IT’S̲ MANDATE, OR “SOMEONE” HAS RUSEFULLY– OR INADVERTENTLY– HANDICAPPED NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR EVERYONE! NEVERTHELESS, IF INADVERTENTLY, ONE MUST ASK: HOW COULD GOD I̲N̲A̲D̲V̲E̲R̲T̲E̲N̲T̲L̲Y̲ UNDERMINE HIS OWN P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE U̲.S.’S LAW?
    .
    Incidentally…
    .
    T̲H̲E̲ ̲F̲E̲D̲E̲R̲A̲L̲I̲S̲T̲ ̲P̲A̲P̲E̲R̲S̲ ̲A̲R̲E̲ ̲N̲O̲T̲ ̲L̲A̲W̲!… they are ESSAYS expressing OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional framework for the patrons of America, and how this framework could be interpreted (albeit, ESSAY OPINIONS from contributors to this framework). Had all or part of these papers been added as a LEGAL PREAMBLE to the proposed U.S. Constitution, then there’d be no question as to their legitimacy as an OFFICIAL GUIDE re Constitutional interpretation and re the scope of each and every provision to be included in the proposed document… but, these were not included (nor a distilled version of same), because there was an unspoken fear that to do so, would compel entrenched opposition to this, that and the other before the document could be ratified– and because, a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE is no longer a matter of public debate, but a course of legislated action that must either win, or fail. And so, to move the debate into the public arena… and away from the prospect of having the document socially shredded by amassed dissent!… is to invite proactive discourse on ESSAY OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional proposal, while– all the while– document designers were “feeling the pulses” of “America’s patients” to gauge whether their “designer bedside manners” were either an assist to the document’s ratification, or but blunders that/ which needed further “treatment” before passage could be effected. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate– but necessary– tact(ic) move… but, the drawback, was that the courts would be without an OFFICIAL GUIDE with which to aver DEFINITIVE yeas or nays re issues of Constitutional interpretation and provisional scope… and must either “pull rabbits out of hats”, or give deference to the “Federalist Papers”. And that, became an ongoing Judicial dilemma…
    .
    “The amount of deference that should be given to The Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that ‘the OPINIONS expressed by the authors of that work have been justly SUPPOSED to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them WHICH EXCEEDS THEIR MERIT; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a RIGHT TO JUDGE of their correctness must be retained.’ In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, James Madison stated of the Constitution that ‘the LEGITIMATE MEANING of the Instrument must be derived from THE TEXT ITSELF; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must BE NOT IN THE OPINIONS OR INTENTIONS OF THE BODY WHICH PLANNED & PROPOSED THE CONSTITUTION, but in the sense ATTACHED TO IT by the people in their respective State Conventions where it RECD. ALL THE AUTHORITY which it possesses.'” – The Federalist Papers, Wikipedia (see, Judicial use) (Note: the bold lettering is my emphasis.)
    .
    Nevertheless!… and on a positive note!… now that the American Constitution is in place, all that Americans need do (through their Representatives!) is to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that/ which would entrench all or part of a distilled rendition of the Federalist Papers in a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE. Or, draft a Formal Legal Preamble that would declare: THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, AND AMERICA’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY– AND REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS!– IS BASED UPON A P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL CITIZENS.
    .
    Reader, despite the cited SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE within the enumerated Sections of the U.S. Constitution, most of us acquainted with the “textual evolution/ contextual evolution” of this document are familiar with yet other opinions of the “founding fathers” that/ which aver a God-centric basis for the document’s manifest existence– and yea, CITE BIBL(IC) PROPHECY. And if this basis be true, then what can we make of– must we make of!– Romans, 13: 1-3, and “Constitutional Authority”?

    • Avatar

      Doug

      June 26, 2022 at 2:07 pm

      What a pile of nonsense. Anything that requires that much effort to explain is BS. In addition there is no passage or clause anywhere in the constitution regarding separation of church and state. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Avatar

        Mr Mustashe

        June 26, 2022 at 8:34 pm

        Shhhhh!… go back to sleep!… you could use the rest! The writer has made no comment at all about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the NOTION of the Separation of Church and State. So, where the h*ll are you getting your ridiculous observation from? He’s writing about the wording of Romans C 13: vs. 1&3… and the said Constitution’s true Authority!

        BTW… Dougy!… the length of his comment is synonymous with his Free Speech! And, it took God a New Testament and an Old Testament (THE BIBLE!) to tell us about His character! So YOUR nonsense about the comment’s length is CR*P!

        And so, it’s YOU… Dougy!… who doesn’t know what the h*ll he’s talking about!

        https://bit.ly/3yj90aX

  3. Avatar

    Rasco Cain

    June 26, 2022 at 1:38 pm

    WAIT, I thought they were a WOMAN’S HEALTH Clinic. Now we find they ONLY live for Abortions??? WOW, and to think, the get over $500,000,000 of OUR tax dollars to do so also. Oh, and they then DONATE $50,000,000 to the DNC as a Political Contribution,,,which is called MONEY LAUNDERING,,which is Why the Dems want to PROTECT PLanned Parenthood,,and FOR NO OTHER REASON. Bub-Bye

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending on Valiant News:

Entertainment

Non-binary singer Sam Smith and trans artist Kim Petras performed a rendition of their song "Unholy."

Politics

While New Hampshire would be the second primary after South Carolina, the Iowa caucuses would not be in the early window at all.

Economy

Buttigied claimed that there have been "so many accomplishments under this administration that it is difficult to list them in a distilled way."

Election Integrity

Democrats in Virginia want billionaires to spend their fortune on election systems. Why ever could that be?