Today’s legal abortion clinics are the true “back alleys” of abortion mythology. And more than four decades after Roe v. Wade, hundreds of disreputable abortion providers are hoping that the Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision invalidating Texas’ abortion patient safety law gives them the green light to increase profits by mainstreaming unsafe and substandard abortion care.
Denise Burke | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Denise Burke is Vice President of Legal Affairs. She directs all aspects of AUL’s extensive legal program and serves as Editor-in-Chief of AUL’s seminal publication, Defending Life, an annual compendium of legal and policy analyses on critical and emerging life issues.
A seasoned litigator and experienced legal and policy analyst, Denise routinely advises legislators and national and state policy groups, testifies before legislative committees on the constitutionality of pro-life legislation, and advises state Attorneys General on the defense of life-affirming laws. She also serves as a frequent media spokesperson and has been published in a variety of outlets including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, National Review, and Human Events and was a contributor to The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion published by Encounter Books (2004).
Denise began her legal career as a judge advocate with the United States Air Force where she served both on active duty and in the reserve. Rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel, she served in a variety of high-profile positions including as an instructor at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School and on the editorial board of the Air Force Law Review.
Should a woman undergoing an abortion be guaranteed the same basic medical safety as a man undergoing a vasectomy? Should both facilities – the abortion clinic and the outpatient surgical center – be required to follow medically endorsed standards for competence and cleanliness?
Abortion will be on the docket as the U.S. Supreme Court begins its term this week. With states continuing to enact innovative, life-affirming legislation, the Court will be asked to clarify the scope of the states’ authority to protect maternal health, while simultaneously confronting the dangerous, profit-driven practices of the abortion industry.
It reads like the script for a horror movie: The spinal cords of just-delivered infants “snipped” with scissors. A dying woman trapped in a “house of horrors” abortion clinic by a padlocked emergency exit, lost in the clinic’s “confusing maze of narrow hallways and multiple twisting stairways." The pervasive smell of animal urine; furniture and blankets stained with blood; broken and inoperable medical equipment; and the remains of dozens of babies stored in jars, milk jugs, and cat food cans.