A new rule announced by the Trump administration on Friday will take aim at an Obama-era policy that pro-lifers say allowed insurers to hide charges for abortion inside government-subsidized health insurance plans.

The "abortion surcharge," as some call the result of an Obama administration rule regarding Obamacare billing, has been a target of pro-life lawmakers and activists for some time. On Friday, the administration announced a final rule addressing the issue.

So what is the abortion surcharge?

A July letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar signed by 25 senators and 103 House members explained that the health insurance law as written requires that federally subsidized health plans that cover elective abortions should charge a separated minimum $1 “abortion surcharge” every month and deposit it into a separate account for abortion procedures. The dual intent was to prevent taxpayer money from directly covering abortion procedures while creating transparency about which insurance plans cover abortions.

“Unfortunately,  in an exercise of executive overreach, the Obama Administration undermined Section 1303 by interpreting ‘separate’ to mean ‘together’ in subsequent regulatory guidance,” the lawmakers wrote. “Blatantly disregarding congressional authority, the guidance stated that simply sending a single notice about the surcharge or itemizing the abortion surcharge on monthly bills would satisfy the requirement under Section 1303.”

"Pursuant to the law," a Center for Medicare news release from Friday explains, "this rule will ensure that taxpayers do not contribute funds to pay for coverage of abortion services for which funding isn’t allowed by law, and will alert consumers that their health plan covers abortion services, allowing them to make fully informed decisions about their coverage."

In a statement about the new final rule, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said that the "separate billing requirement fulfills Congress’ intent and reflects President Trump’s strong commitment to preventing taxpayer funding of abortion coverage.”

Pro-life lawmakers and activists celebrated the rule's announcement as a big win.

"I’m thankful for yet another pro-life win in the books with the new rule to end the hidden abortion surcharge in Obamacare plans," Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. — who joined in an October letter about the surcharge — told Blaze Media about the new policy. "President Trump and Vice President Pence have been fighting for the unborn since the day they took office, and I applaud the entire Trump Administration team for their commitment to pro-life policies in America.”

“This is a victory for American taxpayers as we ensure their hard earned dollars aren’t unknowingly used to pay for another person’s abortion,” Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, said in a statement Blaze Media. “This is another big step by President Trump and his administration to protect life and the rights of conscience of American taxpayers.”

"This new rule will ensure compliance so that ‘separate’ no longer means ‘together’ when it comes to funding abortion," pro-life Susan B. Anthony president Marjorie Dannenfelser stated in response to the finalized rule. "President Trump has delivered an important victory for American consumers and taxpayers, the majority of whom oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions.”

In contrast to the pro-life celebrations over the change, Planned Parenthood called the change "YET another direct ATTACK at abortion access" and said that it could potentially cause some insurance plans to "drop abortion coverage altogether to avoid these administrative burdens or raise costs."

The Supreme Court has opted to leave in place a pro-life Kentucky law that requires women seeking abortion to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before making the decision to abort.

In a lengthy list of court orders put out Monday morning, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case of EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier — a challenge to a Kentucky law that requires women seeking abortion to be shown an ultrasound of their unborn children before making a final decision.

Earlier this year, the law was upheld by a ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Opponents of the law — such as the ACLU of Kentucky — argue that by compelling abortionists to show women ultrasounds of their children, the law violates the free speech rights of abortion providers. The appeals court, however, found the statute's ultrasound requirements to be within the parameters of the First Amendment as it applies to speech required in professional settings.

"We hold that [the law] provides relevant information," the Sixth Circuit opinion reads. "The information conveyed by an ultrasound image, its description, and the audible beating fetal heart gives a patient greater knowledge of the unborn life inside her. This also inherently provides the patient with more knowledge about the effect of an abortion procedure: it shows her what, or whom, she is consenting to terminate. That this information might persuade a woman to change her mind does not render it suspect under the First Amendment. It just means that it is pertinent to her decision-making."

The Supreme Court provided no accompanying explanation for its decision to deny the petition to hear the case.

The ultrasound informed consent law is just one of the Bluegrass State's pro-life statutes to be challenged in federal court lately. Earlier this year, Republican Governor Matt Bevin signed into a law a bill that would make it illegal to perform an abortion after an unborn child's heartbeat is detectable. It was blocked by a federal judge shortly after signature in March.

Should the government be able to force pro-life organizations to ignore their beliefs about abortion when making employment decisions? An ongoing religious liberty lawsuit out of New York state raises the question.

The case is about a bill signed into law by Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in early November that bars nonprofit organizations from hiring and disciplining employees based on their abortion views or even the decision to get an abortion. The issue is that the law contains no exemptions for pro-life organizations whose ideological missions are opposed to abortion. The Alliance Defending Freedom filed the case in federal court last month on behalf of Rochester-based pro-life pregnancy center CompassCare, First Bible Baptist Church, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.

The lawsuit argues that the requirements imposed by the law "compromise the very reason for being of these organizations, which is to promote life, oppose abortion, and teach and live a sexual ethic consistent with biblical principles."

The case bears some some similarity to the Supreme Court's Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School  v. EEOC case, which was decided unanimously. In that case, the court ruled that a Lutheran church was free to choose its ministers without government coercion under a legal concept known as a "ministerial exception."

ADF senior counsel Kevin Theriot says there is "a lot" of overlap between the 2012 case and the one his organization is involved with.

"There is certainly a concern that this law forces churches and religious organizations like CompassCare to violate their core convictions when it comes to hiring and firing, and that's an infringement upon religious autonomy, essentially," Theriot explained in a phone interview with Blaze Media.

Theriot said that, while New York's law is targeted at pro-life organizations, the implications of the matter should be troubling to everyone.

"Everybody should be concerned when the government dictates how an organization is able to further its mission," the attorney explained.

"I think most people agree that Governor Cuomo shouldn't have to hire a Republican speechwriter. You need to be able to associate with people that want to further the mission and to convey the message that you want to convey."

A Louisiana abortion provider embroiled in a major Supreme Court case is trying to hide evidence of criminal activity from prosecutors, according to the state's Department of Justice.

A news release from Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s office from last week says state officials are asking a federal judge to unseal information that contains “evidence of criminal and professional misconduct” by June Medical Services, which does business as Hope Medical Group.

"The information that was uncovered would normally lead the LADOJ to make a criminal referral," the release claims. "However, the presiding federal judge has sealed a large number of important documents and information regarding the case. The LADOJ is asking the appeals court to vacate that order."

"I am deeply concerned about the basic health and safety of Louisiana women," Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill said in a statement. "And Hope's continued efforts to hide this information from the Supreme Court and to block reporting to proper authorities casts serious doubt on Hope and its abortion providers' claims that it represents the interests of Louisiana women."

When reached for comment, Hope Medical Group administrator Kathaleen Pittman told Blaze Media via email that she has "absolutely no idea" what the statement is referring to.

Kelly Krause, a spokesperson for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Hope and filed a 63-page legal brief in the case on Monday, told the Washington Times that the claims are "simply untrue" and that “for years, the state of Louisiana has been relying on baseless attacks on abortion providers to defend its unconstitutional abortion restrictions and this is only the latest example."

Blaze Media reached out to the Louisiana Department of Justice for an update on the status of the legal petition. A statement from the attorney general's office says that the federal  court asked the plaintiffs for a response on Monday. Murrill said her team is "hopeful the district court’s gag order will be lifted so that information which could affect women’s health and safety will no longer be hidden from law enforcement, the courts, and the public.”

The Supreme Court case involving June/Hope is over a state law that requires that abortion providers must have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles. While proponents of the law say that it's a means of protecting women's health, opponents say that the safety concerns are merely a guise for restricting abortion access in a state that only has three remaining abortion clinics. It would also be Justice Brett Kavanaugh's first major abortion case on the high court since being confirmed to the bench in October 2018.

On Thursday, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, vetoed legislation that sought to protect unborn children with Down syndrome from being aborted based on their medical diagnosis.

House Bill 321, or the Down Syndrome Protection Act, would have prohibited abortions based solely on the diagnosis of Down syndrome — a chromosomal disorder that causes physical and intellectual disabilities. It passed the out of the state's House of Representatives back in March and cleared the Senate on Wednesday.

In a statement accompanying his veto, Wolf said that there was "no evidence that this bill is needed in Pennsylvania" and cited "significant concerns that enforcement of this legislation would upend the doctor-patient relationship and impede on patient confidentiality."

"This legislation is a restriction on women and medical professionals and interferes with women’s health care and the crucial decision-making between patients and their physicians," Wolf said.

Proponents of the legislation, however, said that Wolf's veto shows him siding against children with Down syndrome and with eugenics through abortion.

“Shame on Governor Wolf for blocking this compassionate, popular bill. He has signed a death sentence for countless unborn babies targeted for abortion merely because they may have Down syndrome,” said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser in a press release. “The Pennsylvania legislature’s bold action is part of growing nationwide momentum to put an end to lethal discrimination – but Governor Wolf is an abortion extremist who consistently obstructs the will of Pennsylvanians."

“Governor Tom Wolf believes it’s just fine to kill babies in the womb solely because of a prenatal diagnosis of a disability," said Michael Greer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute. "That is eugenics. That’s wrong."

In a blog post, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation education director Bonnie Finnerty took issue with the governor's explanation for issuing the veto, writing, "This is not about health care. This is about judging someone’s life as not worth living."

"This is about exterminating a group of people because they are different and perceived by some to be a burden," Finnerty continues. "This is not health care. It’s elitism."

Meanwhile, the constitutionality of state laws barring abortions based on disabilities is currently working its way through the federal courts. Ohio passed an abortion bill to protect children with Down syndrome in 2017, but it was recently struck down by a ruling from the Sixth Circuit.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case of an Indiana law that bars discriminatory abortions based on sex, race, or disability. The law was blocked by the Seventh Circuit. In an opinion concurring with the court's denial, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that while the court may have decided to allow the issue to further ripen in the lower courts, it would eventually have to weigh in on the issue, warning, “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child ... would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”