Category: Uncategorized

Originally published in the Star Tribune – written by Renee K. Carlson and Kayla Toney

Diversity is undoubtedly an important feature of the state of Minnesota and the U.S. as a whole. America is a pluralistic society where people of any faith are free to practice their religion in the way they see fit and raise their children according to their sincere religious beliefs. Thus, any emphasis on diversity and inclusion must acknowledge and respect religious families as valuable members of a diverse society, because religion is a protected class under the law and the Constitution.

That’s why six Somali Muslim families in St. Louis Park decided to stand up for their faith and their children. When their third- and fourth-grade students were exposed to books and discussions promoting LGBTQ sexuality and identity without their knowledge or consent, their mothers took a simple, peaceful action. They asked their elementary school principals if they could opt their children out of these lessons, without changing the curriculum one bit — and the school district refused.

That was in October 2023. A few weeks later, several Somali moms testified at a school board meeting, respectfully asking for notice and opt-outs when their children encounter teaching about LGBTQ sexuality. One of the board members responded with open hostility, saying that “as a queer person,” she “expected solidarity” from the Muslim community, and that “we don’t need to talk about” their concerns. She refused to engage with the moms and left the meeting.

That’s when True North Legal and First Liberty Institute stepped in. We sent a demand letter on Nov. 2, explaining that Minnesota’s opt-out law requires school districts to provide notice to parents and the opportunity to request alternative learning. We also explained that the First Amendment protects parents’ ability to raise their children in accordance with their sincere religious beliefs, and that the school district’s hostility to these religious parents because of their faith violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Three weeks later, the district created an “Alternative Learning Procedure” that had not existed before, and posted it on its website in English, Spanish and Somali along with a newsletter letting families know about it for the first time. In January and February 2024, all six families, along with dozens of other families of various backgrounds, received written guarantees from the school district that their requests were granted. St. Louis Park Middle and High Schools granted opt-outs as well.

Thanks to these parents’ willingness to stand up for their religious beliefs and for their children, any parent can now request an opt-out for any reason. This means the protections of the First Amendment and Minnesota’s opt-out laws have become a reality for any parent who cares about what their child is learning in class. This is a win for all Minnesota parents and families who believe that parents have the right to teach their own children about sexuality, and to determine when kids should learn about sensitive topics.

As parents of young children, our clients share the same concerns of many parents across this state and the nation. They simply asked the school district to follow the law by giving them notice and an opportunity for alternative learning instruction when they learned that the school was teaching their children about sexuality and gender ideology that goes directly against their religious beliefs and what that their kids are learning at home.

While we are encouraged that the district has granted our clients’ requests, we are disappointed that some lawmakers and other groups have mischaracterized our clients’ requests, and that they have expressed vocal opposition to the rights of various faith communities in Minnesota. Families from a wide range of faith backgrounds, including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Hindus and others who have sincerely held religious beliefs about human sexuality. And regardless of faith affiliation, many parents agree that they — not school administrators — should decide when and how their elementary-aged children encounter topics such as LGBTQ sexuality.

Like many other kinds of religious exemptions that are protected by law, opt-outs are a peaceful, pluralistic way to ensure that no one’s beliefs are trampled upon. Opt-outs are a very workable solution, because students are pulled out of class all the time for various reasons, including tutoring, English as a second language, music lessons and family commitments. Classmates will likely not even notice that some students are reading a different book or stepping out of class briefly, and they will certainly not know the reason why.

We are encouraged that our clients’ opt-out requests have been granted without needing to go to court at this time. However, we will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that our clients and other families receive the opt-outs they have been promised, and that their constitutional rights are not ignored or violated again. In a spirit of diversity and inclusion, let’s work together to ensure that religious diversity is respected, and religious families are included — across this beautiful state and across the nation.

True North Legal was at the U.S. Supreme Court this week alongside other allies for oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition, Inc v. Paxton. True North Legal and Minnesota Family Council are part of a national coalition to protect children from “Big Porn” online. Renee Carlson of our True North Legal initiative & Brittany Jones of Kansas Family Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case supporting the Texas law being challenged, H.B. 1181. To ensure that children are not exposed to horrible and graphic content on these websites, Texas enacted H.B. 1181 requiring age verification for adult’s desiring to access pornographic websites. Click here and here to access updates from True North Legal while at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quite early in oral arguments, many of the justices raised the concerns that we discussed in our amicus brief to the Court. One crucial point being just how much technology has changed since 1997 and 2004, when the Court took up similar cases about protecting kids from harmful online material. Many of the justices agreed that children must be protected from being exposed to vile and graphic online pornographic material found on sites like Porn Hub, one of the groups challenging the Texas law at issue in this case, claiming it infringes on adults’ First Amendment rights. In one exchange between the justices and counsel for the porn industry, Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, referred to porn as “printed smut.” Overall, the Court portrayed a collective and even bold sense of disgust for the predatory nature of the online porn industry and its impact on children.

During oral arguments many of the justices also articulated and understood (contrary to arguments made by Porn Hub), that as technology continues to advance, filters aren’t enough to protect children.  Justice Alito quite pointedly asked counsel for Porn Hub: “Do you know a lot of parents who are really tech savvy—more than their fifteen-year-olds?” Justice Barrett, a mother of seven children, also continued to press on this issue, expressing concern that filters aren’t as effective. This is significant as the porn industry has argued that filters are a better alternative to laws requiring age verification and has made these arguments in legislative bodies and lower courts across the country. Thankfully, many of the Supreme Court justices weren’t buying that argument. 

It comes down to this: Laws like H.B. 1181, provide common sense safeguards and protections for children from being preyed on by the pornography industry. These types of laws have been enacted in many other states across the country with bipartisan support. Please join us in praying that the Texas law is upheld, and for continued collaboration by the diverse coalition who has come together to fight this not only in the states, but across the globe! You can read more about True North Legal’s vital work on this case and the full brief here.

This week the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cooper v. USA Powerlifting & USA Powerlifting Minnesota. UnderUSAPL policy, distinct competitive categories exist, including sex-based categories prohibiting a male athlete from entering the female-only category. At issue in this case is whether USAPL discriminated against plaintiff JayCee Cooper, a male who identifies as a female, in alleged violation of Minnesota law by not allowing Cooper to participate in USAPL’s women only powerlifting category. 

True North Legal submitted an amicus brief in this case representing Minnesota Family Council and the National Legal Foundation, in support of female athletes desiring to preserve female only competitions. The case is extremely important in the fight to ensure that the hard-fought gains of female athletes in all sports and at all levels of competition are not erased. Women deserve a safe and fair playing field, especially in strength competitions like female powerlifting. True North Legal’s brief details how Minnesota law, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act, requires that female athletics be reserved for female athletes, and speaks to the avalanche of evidence and data regarding the necessity to protect women-only sports categories. Most significantly, the brief incorporates data from the recently published UN Report cataloging the necessity of allowing sex-based distinctions in sport — in other words, only females should compete in female-only categories in USAPL competitions. Women should not be forced to compete against males who identify as transgender women. Make-bodied athletes do not belong in female athletic competitions regardless of how they identify. 

Yes, it really is and should be that simple. Minnesota law was enacted to protect against any attempt by males to hijack women’s sports opportunities, which is exactly what plaintiff Jaycee Cooper, and plaintiff’s counsel, Gender Justice asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to do during oral arguments.

And if you don’t take our word for it, consider the number of NCAA college athletes who have voiced public concern about males playing in female sports. Most recently a number of NCAA female volleyball teams have chosen to forfeit their games impacting their overall ranking and ability to compete in future playoffs because they refuse to risk their health and safety by competing against a team with a male athlete identifying as female. Stay posted for more updates on this case and True North Legal’s perspective on oral arguments in forthcoming podcasts. 

You can read more about this example and the entire case in True North Legal’s brief HERE.

Today, True North Legal filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court, along with Kansas Family Voice, representing Minnesota Family Council and thirty-two other family policy groups across the country in Free Speech Coalition, Inc v. Paxton.

This case involves a legal challenge to a Texas age verification law which creates online safeguards and protections for children against the pornography industry. Increasing access to technology demands protecting children from tech giants who have done little to shield children and arguably prey on innocent minds.

As reflected in our brief, studies show that online pornography is more accessible now than ever before, and in the very least, children are stumbling on to it by accident.

Our amicus brief argues in support of the Texas age verification law, explaining the studies that show the harmful effects of online pornography on children and it’s addictive nature, as well as the legislative authority to pass these laws that have been enacted across the country with bipartisan support. 

True North Legal says “No”, and that’s why we engaged in a pivotal case this week in the Minnesota Supreme Court.

True North Legal submitted an amicus brief this week, also representing Minnesota Family Council and the National Legal Foundation, in support of female athletes in the Cooper v. USA Powerlifting & USA Powerlifting Minnesota, case. The case, which will be heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court, is extremely important in the fight to ensure that the hard-fought gains of female athletes in all sports and at all levels of competition are not erased. Women deserve a safe and fair playing field, especially in strength competitions like female powerlifting. True North Legal’s brief details how Minnesota law, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act, requires that female athletics be reserved for female athletes, and speaks to the avalanche of evidence and data regarding the necessity to protect women-only sports categories. Most significantly, the brief incorporates data from the recently published UN Report cataloging the necessity of allowing sex-based distinctions in sport — in other words, women should compete against biological women in female-only categories. Women should not be forced to compete against transgender women, male-bodied athletes, in female athletic competitions. 

Yes, it really is (and should be) that simple. And if you don’t take our word for it, consider the number of NCAA teams forfeiting games because they refuse to risk their health and safety by competing against a team with a biological male athlete, identifying as female. Read True North Legal’s brief here and stay posted for more updates on this case in our upcoming Family Beacon Podcast. 

(Minnetonka, MN) – The Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) and co-counsel True North Legal (TNL) have filed an appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States District Court’s decision yesterday to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction in its case to reinstate Plaintiff Anthony Schmitt’s highly successful Christian rehabilitation program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility – St. Cloud. UMLC argues that this termination has unjustly deprived prisoners of a proven and transformative resource solely because of the DOC’s ideological opposition to normal Christian beliefs which have existed for millennia.

For over a decade, the entirely voluntary program led by plaintiff Anthony Schmitt and his team provided a lifeline for male inmates, helping them to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society by teaching principles of authentic manhood through Christian teachings. The program’s success is undeniable. It graduated more than a thousand inmates, and scores of inmates reported restored family relationships, resolved personal conflicts, and significant personal growth as a result of their participation.

However, in July 2023, the DOC abruptly canceled the program, citing its “direct conflict with the diversity, equity, and inclusivity values of the DOC” because it defined manhood through a “biblical lens.” This decision was conveyed to Schmitt in an email from DOC Assistant Commissioner Jolene Rebertus, effectively ending a program that had become a cornerstone of inmate rehabilitation in the facility.

Schmitt argues that the DOC’s actions are not only discriminatory but also a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights as well as the rights of the inmates. By terminating the program, the DOC has deprived prisoners of a critical rehabilitative service based solely on ideological opposition to its Christian foundation.

“The DOC has sacrificed the well-being of prisoners on the altar of left-wing secular religion. This program was not just successful—it was life-changing for the inmates who participated. Canceling it because it is rooted in Christian beliefs is a grave injustice.” said James Dickey, Senior Counsel at UMLC. “It is absurd that the DOC is openly discriminating against mainstream views of human sexuality shared across every major theistic faith tradition. We are committed to seeing this case through at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to restore this vital resource to the prisoners who desperately need it as soon as possible.”

“If the DOC and the Walz administration are truly committed to ‘freedom,’ as they claim, then Minnesota inmates deserve the freedom to choose to engage in a voluntary faith-based program that has set many inmates on a path to recovery,” said Renee Carlson, General Counsel at True North Legal. “The DOC’s actions are standing in the way of that freedom, denying inmates access to a program with proven results because the program is founded in principles consistent with millennia of Christian tradition and does not conform to secular government religion of the day.”

UMLC and TNL are seeking declarations from the courts that the DOC’s actions violate the federal and Minnesota constitutions and are demanding the reinstatement of the Christian rehabilitation program.

Click here to view the decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

Click here to view UMLC and TNL’s appeal. 

Today, Rep. Barbara Ehardt of Idaho, author and principal sponsor of the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which was enacted on March 30, 2020, filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the state of Idaho in Hecox v. Little asking the court to grant certiorari in the case. She was joined by fifty-five female state legislators and thirty-four family policy organizations across the country, including the Idaho Family Policy Center who helped the law pass through the Idaho legislature. All of these legislators and organizations have authored, sponsored, introduced, supported, or advocated legislation defining eligibility for women’s sports based on biological criteria,

The Fairness in Women’s Sports Act was passed to keep other female athletes from facing unfair competitions as was the case in Idaho prior to the law’s enactment. Shortly after the law was passed, the ACLU sued the state of Idaho claiming the law is unconstitutional because it does not allow transgender females — males who identify as females — to play in female only sports. The case has made its way up through the federal courts, and most recently, a panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the law unconstitutional.

The amici represented in this brief are legislators and policy organizations that championed Fairness in Women’s Sports laws or similar laws that protect women and girls’ athletic opportunities. These legislators and family policy organizations understand that the consequences of mandating a gender-identity criterion for participation in women’s sports would fundamentally change and erase women’s and girl’s sports altogether. This means years of hard fought gains and future opportunities for young girls would no longer remain. Moreover, legislators across the country who authored and co-authored these bills believe it is their responsibility and duty to protect the opportunities of women and girls in their respective states by enacting legislation like the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act that was passed in Idaho. Amici understand that girls’ athletic opportunities are some of the most formative and impactful times in a young girl’s or young women’s life, where experiences on the court or in the field foster enduring leadership qualities and character development. Amici believe all girls and women deserve that opportunity.

“Title IX changed my life. People need to understand that the opportunities that I had growing up were incredibly limited. I was eight years old when Title IX passed in 1972. But I kept my hope alive, continued to practice and ended up achieving my goal of both playing (Idaho State) and coaching Division I Women’s basketball at four fantastic institutions (UC Santa Barbara, BYU, Washington State and as the head coach at Cal State Fullerton).  It is through these experiences that I worked hard to pave a better path forward for those who would follow.  After years of work and witnessing huge growth for girls and woman in sports, it is devastating to watch us go backwards and, once again, have all of the female opportunities be based on what males need first. It began as what was best for men and we’re back to what’s best for men. This is terribly disappointing.” said Amicus Rep. Ehardt, former Division I NCAA basketball player and coach, and current coach for various clinics and travel teams for high-level high-school basketball prospects.

“Female athletes of all ages deserve a level playing field. Allowing men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports is hijacking more than podiums and scholarships. It’s taking away opportunities to learn valuable life lessons, develop character, and to build confidence, all of which are often the additional benefits of many female athletes,” said Renee Carlson, General Counsel for True North Legal and co-author of the brief.  

“For over fifty years the nation has recognized the need for and celebrated the achievement of women in sports. There is broad consensus on this topic across ideological and political lines. Women deserve the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. These laws, like the ones passed in Idaho and Kansas, recognize the biological reality that embodied athletes play sports, not identities. These laws simply say that where biology makes a competitive difference, it should be respected. Courts must uphold these realities if we are going to continue to see the advancements that we are seeing today in women’s sports. We will continue to stand for women and girls,” said Brittany Jones, General Counsel for Kansas Family Foundation and co-author of the brief.  

The Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) and co-counsel True North Legal (TNL) filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) officials’ abrupt cancellation of a Christian rehabilitation program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility – St. Cloud. The program, led by plaintiff Anthony Schmitt and his colleagues, has been an instrumental tool in facilitating successful transitions to the community for male prison inmates over the past decade.

The voluntary program, designed to instill principles of authentic manhood as per Christian teachings, saw remarkable success. More than a thousand inmates completed the program, reporting restored families, healed resentments, and transformative experiences. However, in July 2023, Schmitt received an email from DOC Assistant Commissioner and Defendant Jolene Rebertus, announcing the cancellation of the program, citing alleged conflicts with diversity and inclusion values.

Commissioner Rebertus’ email stated that the program “directly conflicts with the diversity, equity, and inclusivity values of the DOC by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a ‘real man looks like.’” Like a substantial number of professing Christians and Catholics in the United States, Schmitt simply believes what the Bible says about men and women and human sexuality. Schmitt vehemently disagrees with the DOC’s characterization of his views as discriminatory or biased, emphasizing instead the positive impact the program has had on rehabilitation.

This case draws parallels to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, where the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Philadelphia’s refusal to refer foster parents to a Catholic agency violated the First Amendment. The Court noted that such actions, driven by discrimination against religious beliefs, could not survive strict scrutiny.

UMLC and TNL argue that Commissioner Rebertus’ actions are not neutral or generally applicable, directly targeting Schmitt’s and the inmates’ religious beliefs. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that these actions violate Schmitt’s rights under the federal and Minnesota constitutions and demands the reinstatement of the program.

“This lawsuit is yet another example of the aggressive attack on people of faith in Minnesota. The state has not presented any evidence that the “Quest for Biblical Manhood” is harmful. In fact evidence in this case demonstrates quite the opposite! Even the DOC has in recent years praised the program for its results and impact on the lives of inmates,” said Renee Carlson, General Counsel for True North Legal. 

“DOC officials canceled Anthony Schmitt’s “Quest for Authentic Manhood” program at the St. Cloud correctional facility because, as they said themselves, it is based on biblical Christianity and does not follow the State’s particular DEI religion,” said UMLC Senior Counsel James Dickey. “Both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the Constitution forbid this. We are committed to ensuring that Anthony Schmitt can continue to make a positive impact on the lives of those seeking rehabilitation.”

Plaintiff Anthony Schmitt said: “Through the Quest for Authentic Manhood program at St. Cloud, we have had incredible success over the last decade, with more than 1,000 inmates graduating and moving on to a restored life in the community. I have seen countless powerful testimonies and tears shed over the last decade because of the tremendous positive impact this program has had on inmates’ lives. I was shocked and dismayed when the DOC suddenly canceled us, and I just want to be able to minister to these men, who so desperately need support and rehabilitation.”

Just this week, we sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking to reinstate the Quest program. 

As Alexandra Howell who argued the case on Wednesday made clear, “Tony taught a highly successful, and voluntary, rehabilitation program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Saint Cloud for over a decade. He was suddenly kicked out of the prison because the Department of Corrections disapproved of the “biblical lens” through which Tony taught the class. This action was blatant religious discrimination. A preliminary injunction is necessary so Tony can get back to his important work as soon as possible, and so inmates can have access to this transformative programming.”

We will continue to update you on this case as it progresses. Please keep our client, Anthony Schmitt, in your prayers as well as the legal team engaged in this fight to protect and defend religious freedom, not just for Mr. Schmitt, but for the inmates who deserve foundational and successful programs that restore inmates and put them on a path to healing and true recovery.

Click to view the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

By Renee Carlson, General Counsel, True North Legal

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in State of Idaho v. United States of America. At issue in this caseis Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which makes nearly all elective abortions illegal in the state of Idaho. The Biden administration challenged the law claiming the Emergency Labor And Medical Treatment Act (EMTALA) – a law that was “enacted in response to widely publicized reports of emergency care providers transferring indigent patients from one hospital to the next while the patients’ emergency medical conditions worsened” —

forces emergency room doctors to perform abortions and overrides state laws like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. Yet there is no reference to abortion in EMTALA, and no implications that providing medical treatment also mandates hospitals provide abortions, while the term “unborn child” is included in the EMTALA statute. Moreover, the Court’s clear precedent in Dobbs is that the legality of abortion is now left to the states to decide.

True North Legal, along with our colleagues at Kansas Family Voice and Cross Castle filed an amicus brief in this case in support of Idaho, representing Minnesota Family Council and twenty-five other family policy organizations across the country who are dedicated to protecting and defending life-affirming laws across the country.

I also had the privilege of being in the Court watching oral arguments and can attest firsthand to the Biden administration’s reliance on novel legal theories about EMTALA, conflating unfettered access to elective abortion on demand with treatment for pregnancy-related emergency medical conditions such as ectopic pregnancies. This false and confusing narrative is consistent with the fearmongering of national and local abortion activists and Planned Parenthood, including in Minnesota. Here, local activists and legislators proffered the same misinformation about the necessity of abortion hoping that fearmongering would win the day, in a failed effort by many legislators in the Democratic party to pass a so-called state Equal Rights Amendment, which would add abortion up until birth to the Minnesota Constitution. 

Ultimately, the Court did not address the merits of the case, and sent it back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration. In other words, this case is not over and we can have hope in that outcome. As Idaho’s Chief of Constitutional Litigation and Policy Josh Turner, who argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, aptly remarked about the decision, “…We forced the Biden administration to make major concessions before the Supreme Court that it did not want to make, and those concessions are going to save many unborn lives. The people of Idaho should not be fooled by the misleading headlines in the media. Instead, I encourage everyone to read the court’s opinions for themselves. The court may have decided to ‘punt’ today on the merits given the Biden administration’s ‘important’ and ‘critical’ concessions, but I have zero doubt after reading the decision, after standing before the justices and answering their questions, and after listening to the DOJ’s best arguments to defend the Biden administration’s legally untenable position, that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is not preempted by EMTALA and will be vindicated in full.”

While much is left to be decided in State of Idaho v. United States of America, we can celebrate the Court’s unquestionable affirmation of conscience protections for doctors in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, stating “EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections…” In other words, a physician cannot be compelled to abandon their oath to do no harm or be forced to violate their conscience by performing an abortion.

Please continue to pray for this significant case and the other legal battles in our state and across the country in the continued fight to protect life. We can assure you that at True North Legal we will unapologetically continue to support life and defend justice for women and preborn children in Minnesota by educating the public, and advocating for them in the legislature and in the courts. As I shared with you last week, the prolife movement is bigger than one day at the U.S. Supreme Court—we have the long view in mind. 

By Renee K. Carlson, General Counsel, True North Legal

Just yesterday in a unanimous decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine which includes pro-life doctors and other pro-life organizations lacked Article III standing, the legal requisite necessary for the Court to decide the case on the merits — the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) unlawful regulatory actions regarding the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone. Thus, at least for now, the FDA will not be held accountable for unlawfully removing many common sense health and safety standards for high-risk abortion drugs such as: simply requiring an in person doctor visit for prescribing this dangerous abortion drug, reporting requirements, and making the high-risk abortion drug available for women and girls via tele-health. So perilous chemical abortions will remain available under the FDA’s expanded access to mifepristone without many common sense guardrails for the abortion drug.

One practical implication of the abortion industry’s reckless disregard for safety is the lack of screening for prior complications like ectopic pregnancy and other pregnancy related conditions which puts women in danger and serious risk of medical complications. This is not hyperbole. When I spoke at the U.S. Supreme Court back in March of this year in support of the plaintiffs and pro-life doctors in this case, I heard heart wrenching stories of women and girls taking these drugs — left alone to perform their own abortions on a cold chilled bathroom floor. Some women shared that the emotional distress of being left along while losing a child was even more damaging than the physical suffering induced by medical complications of abortion drugs.

To be clear, abortion is not healthcare! Our amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade, catalogues the lies and harms that the abortion industry has perpetrated against women and girls for nearly half a century. To that point, yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision does not change the fact that according to the FDA’s own label, one in twenty-five women who choose to take dangerous abortion drugs like mifepristone will end up in the emergency room due to medical complications. The abortion industry must come clean for its culpability of harming women and girls by refusing to be transparent about the risks of taking abortion drugs. It should not take a U.S. Supreme Court decision to compel their honesty.

However, the Court was very clear that “federal conscience laws definitely protect doctors from being required to perform abortions or to provide other treatment that violates their consciences.” (emphasis added). Thus implying conscience protections beyond the abortion context. Even more specifically, the Court stated that “EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections…” In other words, a physician cannot be compelled to abandon their oath to do no harm or be forced to violate their conscience. Based on this statement we have much hope as we anticipate another significant U.S. Supreme Court decision by the end of June in Idaho v. United States. (True North Legal and Kansas Family Foundation submitted an amicus brief in this case, read it here.) In this case, Idaho passed the Defense of Life Act, making nearly all elective abortions illegal in the state of Idaho. In applying a novel interpretation of a federal law that has been on the books for forty years, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), the Biden administration now claims this law forces emergency room doctors to perform abortions and overrides state laws like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. This, despite the Court’s clear precedent in Dobbs that abortion decisions are now left to the states to decide.

Despite our disappointment in this decision, I am just as encouraged if not more so about the pro-life movement than I was the on March 24, 2024, when I spoke about our pro-life movement at the U.S. Supreme Court. As I shared in my rally speech, our movement is bigger than one day at the U.S.Supreme Court. Across the nation and in Minnesota, I know that the abortion industry will never outmatch our our love, our courage, and our support for women, girls, and preborn children. All hope is not lost! In the words of the great prophet Jeremiah, “The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him.” Lamentations 3:25. Let us be people that seek the Lord and in turn point others to healing and hope in Christ, like women and girls who have been duped by the abortion industry.