Sarah Pitlyk And Abortion
Pitlyk Threatened IVF And Surrogacy
2015: Pitlyk Argued That Frozen Embryos Should Be Considered Human Beings Under The Law
2015: Pitlyk Argued That Frozen Embryos Should Be Considered Human Beings. According to the Daily Beast, “While at Runnymede Law Group, a St. Louis-based law firm, Pitlyk argued in a 2015 custody case over frozen embryos that they should be considered human beings under the law. After losing the case, she said the trial court’s judgment ‘treated the embryonic children as inanimate objects, not human beings with the same interests as other unborn children.’ She said the existing children of her client, a woman who sought the right to several frozen embryos created with her ex-husband, would ‘have to navigate the murky psychological waters of knowing that they had similarly situated siblings who died at the hand of their father.’” [Daily Beast, 9/30/19]
Pitlyk Wrote In A Amicus Brief That Surrogacy Weakened Society
Pitlyk Wrote That Assisted Reproductive Technology Resulted In The “Weakening Of Appropriate Social Mores Against Eugenic Abortion.” According to the Daily Beast, “Pitlyk authored an amicus brief opposing a California statute that protects the right to assisted reproductive technology. She claims in her brief that ‘surrogacy has grave effects on society, such as diminished respect for motherhood and the unique mother/child bond; exploitation of women; commodification of gestation and of children themselves; and weakening of appropriate social mores against eugenic abortion.” [Daily Beast, 9/30/19]
Pitlyk Defended Anti-Abortion Extremists Who Released Selectively Edited, Misleading Videos Antagonizing Planned Parenthood
2015: Pitlyk Defeded Undercover Activist David Daleiden After Releasing Selectively Edited Video Accusing Planned Parenthood Of Fetal Tissue Trafficking
2015: Pitlyk Defended David Daleiden When He Edited Videos To Accuse Planned Parenthood Of Fetal Tissue Trafficking. According to the Daily Beast, “Pitlyk is a special counsel at the Thomas More Society, a pro-life law firm that advocates for religious freedom. She was part of the firm’s team that defended undercover activist David Daleiden, who filmed and selectively edited videos to accuse Planned Parenthood of fetal tissue trafficking back in 2015.” [Daily Beast, 9/30/19]
Pitlyk Described Planned Parenthood As Partaking In “Baby Parts Trafficking.” According to the Daily Beast, “The charges against Planned Parenthood were debunked—by a Republican-led House Oversight Committee, no less. Yet Pitlyk continued to describe the health care provider’s practices as ‘baby parts trafficking.’ In a separate case, she accused Planned Parenthood of preying on low-income women through the location of their centers.” [Daily Beast, 9/30/19]
The Group Pitlyk Defended Was Found To Have Selectively Edited And Manipulated The Videos In Question
An Investigation Concluded That The Videos Were Manipulated. According to the New York Times, “Planned Parenthood on Thursday gave congressional leaders and a committee that is investigating allegations of criminality at its clinics an analysis it commissioned concluding that ‘manipulation’ of undercover videos by abortion opponents make those recordings unreliable for any official inquiry. ‘A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict,’ the analysis of a private research company said.” [New York Times, 8/28/15]
Pitlyk Defended Iowa’s Six-Week Abortion Ban
Pitlyk Defended Iowa’s Six-Week Abortion Ban, Which Was Ruled Unconstitutional
Pitlyk Defended Iowa’s Six-Week Abortion Ban Law. According to Courthouse News Service, “Sarah Pitlyk, who is nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, has for the last two years worked as special counsel at the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm that bills itself as ‘dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family and religious liberty.’ Since joining the Thomas More Society, she has worked to defend an Iowa law that banned abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected and represented a collection of religious organizations in their successful challenge to a St. Louis ordinance that barred discrimination on the basis of ‘reproductive health decisions.’” [Courthouse News Service, 9/25/19]
The Law Was Later Declared Unconstitutional
2019: The Law Was Declared Unconstitutional. According to the Associated Press, “A state judge on Tuesday struck down Iowa’s restrictive ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion law, which would have been the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation. Judge Michael Huppert found the law unconstitutional, concluding that the Iowa Supreme Court’s earlier decisions that affirm a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion would include the new law passed last year.” [Associated Press, 1/22/19]
Pitlyk Founded Yale Law Students For Life
Pitlyk Founded Yale Law Students For Life. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Pitlyk graduated summa cum laude from Boston College before receiving master’s degrees in philosophy from Georgetown University and in applied biomedical ethics from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, where she was a Fulbright Scholar, her bio says. She graduated from Yale in 2008. Students for Life lauded the announcement Thursday, saying Pitlyk founded Yale Law Students for Life.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/15/19]
Pitlyk Sued St. Louis Over A Reproductive Rights Nondiscrimination Ordinance
2017: Pitlyk Represented The Thomas More Society When They Sued The City Of St. Louis Over Their Reproductive Rights Nondiscrimination Ordinance
2017: Pitlyk, Representing The Thomas More Society, Sued St. Louis Over An Ordinance That Prohibited Discrimination Based On A Person’s Reproductive Decisions. According to the St. Louis Business Journal, “A home for pregnant women, Catholic grade schools and a holding company and its owner are suing the city of St. Louis, claiming a city ordinance violates their constitutional rights because it includes abortion advocates but not abortion opponents. The suit was filed Monday in federal court in St. Louis by the Thomas More Society, a national nonprofit law firm. The plaintiffs are Our Lady’s Inn, a shelter for pregnant, homeless women; the Archdiocesan Elementary Schools of the Archdiocese of St. Louis; O’Brien Industrial Holdings and its owner, Frank Robert O’Brien. City ordinance 70459 was passed in February ‘to prohibit discrimination based on a person’s reproductive health decisions or pregnancy.’ ‘The city has taken the protections typically granted to prevent discrimination for ‘race, age, religion, sex or disability’ and applied them to those who have made or expect to make ‘reproductive health decisions,’ said Sarah Pitlyk, a lawyer for the Thomas More Society. ‘Reproductive health decisions’ is so overbroad as to include any decision that is any way related to contraceptive use or abortion. The law would therefore force nonprofit organizations like Our Lady’s Inn, whose mission is to promote and facilitate abortion alternatives, to hire abortion advocates, despite their opposition to the ministry’s reason for existence.’” [St. Louis Business Journal, 5/22/17]
Sarah Pitlyk And Equal Opportunity
Pitlyk Opposed Affirmative Action
Pitlyk Opposed Affirmative Action In An Amicus Brief To The U.S. Supreme Court
2006: Michigan Ballot Initiative Proposal 2 Banned Affirmative Action
2006: Michigan Initiative Proposal 2 Passed, Amending The State Constitution To Prohibit Affirmative Action In Public Education, Government Contracting, And Public Employment. According to the New York Times, “The Michigan initiative, known as Proposal 2, was a response to Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions to ensure educational diversity. Proposal 2, approved in 2006 by 58 percent of Michigan’s voters, amended the State Constitution to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment in public education, government contracting and public employment. Groups favoring affirmative action sued to block the part of the law concerning higher education.” [New York Times, 4/22/14]
2012: The United States Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit Ruled Against Proposal 2
2012: The United States Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit Ruled Against The Michigan Affirmative Action Ban, Deciding It Violated The Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. According to the New York Times, “In 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled by a vote of 8 to 7 that the initiative violated the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause. The appeals court majority said the problem with the law was that it restructured the state’s political process by making it harder for disfavored minorities to press for change.” [New York Times, 4/22/14]
2013: Pitlyk Wrote A Brief Opposing Affirmative Action Programs In Michigan
2013: Pitlyk Wrote An Amicus Brief On Behalf Of Right-Wing Organization American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) Opposing Affirmative Actions Programs In Michigan. According to the Amicus Brief For The American Civil Rights Union And The American Rights Institute, “State-imposed racial classifications pose a basic affront to the diginity of the persons classified. […] Members of preferred groups suffer from the unjust stigma that they are inherently incapable of competing on an even footing.” [Brief For The American Civil Rights Union And The American Rights Institute As Amici Curiae In Support Of The Petitioner, “Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action,” U.S. Supreme Court, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), Filed 7/1/13]
2014: The Supreme Court Upheld Michigan’s Ban On Affirmative Action In Admissions
2014: In A 6-2 Decision, The Supreme Court Upheld The Michigan Ban On Affirmative Action In Admissions. According to the New York Times, “In a fractured decision that revealed deep divisions over what role the judiciary should play in protecting racial and ethnic minorities, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. The 6-to-2 ruling effectively endorsed similar measures in seven other states. It may also encourage more states to enact measures banning the use of race in admissions or to consider race-neutral alternatives to ensure diversity.” [New York Times, 4/22/14]