Jeff Landry's Reproductive Rights Record

Landry Said Anyone Opposed To Louisiana’s Abortion Laws Can Move Out Of State

Landry Told People Opposed To Louisiana’s Abortion Laws “If You Don’t Like The Laws Of The State, You Can Move To One Which You Like.” According to NOLA.com, “Attorney General Jeff Landry, a vehemently anti-abortion Republican who is expected to run for governor next year, was in court Friday, though he left the lawyering to his legal team. After the ruling, Landry accused the plaintiffs of ‘venue shopping’ and took a shot at the state Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case this week. He also took a shot at those fighting to preserve access to abortion. ‘If you don’t like the laws of the state, you can move to one which you like,’ Landry said.” [NOLA.com, 7/08/22]

Landry Voted For A 20-Week Abortion Ban With No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest

2012: Jeff Landry Voted To Ban Abortion In Washington D.C. 20 Weeks After Fertilization, With No Exception For Cases Of Rape Or Incest. In July 2012, Jeff Landry voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “ban[ned] all abortions in the District of Columbia in cases where the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus in question is 20 weeks — providing an exception only in cases where the life of the woman is in danger. Any abortion performed under this exception must provide the fetus the ‘best opportunity to survive,’ unless termination in that manner would result in the death or substantial and irreversible harm to the woman.” In addition, the bill would have “impose[d] reporting requirements for any abortions performed prior to the 20-week threshold. The measure imposes criminal penalties on medical professionals who violate the ban, and it provides legal standing for an affected party to seek punitive damages. […] The measure prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban.” The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to pass; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 220 to 154. [House Vote 539, 7/31/12; Congressional Quarterly, 7/30/12; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3803]

• House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Said There Is Scientific Evidence That Fetus Could Feel Pain At Least 20 Weeks After Fertilization And “The Ability To Experience Pain Is One Of The Traits That Makes Us Human.” According to the Congressional Record, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, “It is simply unfathomable that, other than by the methods banned by federal law, the District of Columbia allows abortion for any reason, by any method up until the moment right before birth. While people may differ on the issue of abortion, Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that abortions should be restricted at the point at which an unborn child can feel pain. And with good reason, the ability to experience pain is one of the traits that makes us human. And the commitment to protect the defenseless from physical acts of violence is one of the hallmarks of humanity. Science demonstrates that by at least 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child can feel pain.” [Congressional Record, 7/31/12]
• Opponents Said “Dangerous” Bill Lacked Exceptions For Cases Of Rape Or Incest, And Was Part Of A GOP Strategy To Ban Abortion Nationwide. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Rush Holt (N-NJ) said, “Besides being misguided and offensive, H.R. 3803 is dangerous. This bill has only a narrow exception for the life of the woman. This bill has no exception at all for cases of rape or incest. It is clear that this legislation is part of a broader strategy to ban abortion everywhere not just in the District of Columbia. I oppose this anti-choice, anti-woman, and anti-District of Columbia bill and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous piece of legislation.” [Congressional Record, 7/31/12]

Landry Voted To Allow Doctors To Refuse To Perform An Abortion, Even To Save A Life

2011: Jeff Landry Voted To Potentially Permit Hospitals And Doctors To Refuse To Perform An Abortion, Even If It Would Save A Woman’s Life In An Emergency. In October 2011, Jeff Landry voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “prohibit[ed] any federal agency, state or local government that receives federal funding from discriminating against a ‘health care entity’ that refuses to receive training on how to perform abortions; provide such training; pay for, participate in, or perform abortions; or offer referrals for abortion services. The bill defines a ‘health care entity’ as an individual physician or other health care professional, hospital, provider-sponsored organization, health maintenance organization, insurance plan, or any other health care facility, organization or plan.” Congressional Quarterly reported elsewhere that “[m]uch of the debate [during committee consideration of the legislation] centered on a provision that would give ‘conscience rights’ to hospital workers who did not wish to help provide abortions. Democrats warned that the language could allow hospital employees to stand idle even as a woman faced death without care. Republicans denied that assertion.” The provisions were part of a larger bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “barred the use of federal funds to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion services. The bill also would [have] require[d] that insurance companies offering plans on state exchanges that cover abortion services also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion services.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 251 to 172; however, no substantive action on the measure was taken by the Senate. [House Vote 789, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 358]

• Bill’s Opponents Said Language Protecting A Hospital Or Doctor’s Refusal To Perform An Abortion Could Override Existing Health Providers Obligation To Provide Emergency Medical Treatment. According to Congressional Quarterly, opponents of the bill argued that “[t]his bill goes far beyond this simply prohibiting federal funding for abortion. It will seriously discourage providers from covering abortion services. The bill potentially takes away the Affordable Care act's limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion by means of a legal and medically appropriate service. And among its most disturbing provisions, the bill would upend the Affordable Care act's requirement that health care providers remain obligated to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Intentionally or unintentionally, the bill language is ambiguous.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]
• Bill Authors Argued That Its Conscience Provisions Would Not Conflict With Current Emergency Care Laws, Because They Already Required Stabilizing An “Unborn Child.” According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Subsection (a), paragraph (6) inserts ‘Subject to subsection (g)’ before the clause regarding emergency services including the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). There is not a conflict between the conscience clause and EMTALA because EMTALA references stabilizing the woman and her ‘unborn child.’ The language clarifies that the general reference to ‘emergency services as required by State or Federal law’ should not be construed to allow states to override conscience protections by labeling broad abortion mandates as ‘emergency service’ requirements.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]
• Bill’s Opponents Said Its Supporters Had Misrepresented Current Law, Saying Existing “Unborn Child” Language Served To Require Hospitals To Provide Emergency Care For Health Threats To Fetus. According to the dissenting views included in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman’s ‘‘unborn child.’’ This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to ‘unborn child’ in the definition of ‘emergency medical condition’ is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an ‘emergency medical condition’ if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to ‘unborn child’ in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]
• The Catholic Health Association, Which Supported The Overall Bill’s Goals, Said It Opposed Bill’s Changes To Emergency Medical Care Requirements. According to a letter from Catholic Health Association President and CEO Carol Keehan, reprinted in the Congressional Record, “The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) would like to express our continued support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn and of providers’ conscience rights. We have had the opportunity to review your revised version of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f) regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes a reference to a new provision regarding provider nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and the ‘Weldon Amendment,’ without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not believe that there is a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11]

2011: Jeff Landry Voted To Potentially Allow Hospitals And Doctors To Refuse To Perform An Abortion When Needed To Save A Woman’s Life In A Medical Emergency. October 2011, Jeff Landry effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have ensured “that nothing in the [underlying] bill would exempt hospitals or medical providers from state or federal laws requiring they give care that would prevent the death of pregnant women with emergency medical conditions.” The underlying bill, according to Congressional Quarterly, included provisions that would have “prohibit[ed] any federal agency, state or local government that receives federal funding from discriminating against a ‘health care entity’ that refuses to receive training on how to perform abortions; provide such training; pay for, participate in, or perform abortions; or offer referrals for abortion services. The bill defines a ‘health care entity’ as an individual physician or other health care professional, hospital, provider-sponsored organization, health maintenance organization, insurance plan, or any other health care facility, organization or plan.” The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that it be reported back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 173 to 249. The underlying bill passed the House; however, the Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 788, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 358]

• Underlying Bill’s Opponents Said Its Language Protecting A Hospital Or Doctor’s Refusal To Perform An Abortion Could Override Existing Health Providers Obligation To Provide Emergency Medical Treatment. According to Congressional Quarterly, opponents of the bill argued that “[t]his bill goes far beyond this simply prohibiting federal funding for abortion. It will seriously discourage providers from covering abortion services. The bill potentially takes away the Affordable Care act's limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion by means of a legal and medically appropriate service. And among its most disturbing provisions, the bill would upend the Affordable Care act's requirement that health care providers remain obligated to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Intentionally or unintentionally, the bill language is ambiguous.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]
• The Catholic Health Association, Which Supported The Underlying Bill’s Goals, Said It Opposed Bill’s Changes To Emergency Medical Care Requirements. According to a letter from Catholic Health Association President and CEO Carol Keehan, reprinted in the Congressional Record, “The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) would like to express our continued support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn and of providers’ conscience rights. We have had the opportunity to review your revised version of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f) regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes a reference to a new provision regarding provider nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and the ‘Weldon Amendment,’ without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not believe that there is a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11]
• Underlying Bill’s Authors Argued That Its Conscience Provisions Would Not Conflict With Current Emergency Care Laws, Because They Already Required Stabilizing An “Unborn Child.” According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Subsection (a), paragraph (6) inserts ‘Subject to subsection (g)’ before the clause regarding emergency services including the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). There is not a conflict between the conscience clause and EMTALA because EMTALA references stabilizing the woman and her ‘unborn child.’ The language clarifies that the general reference to ‘emergency services as required by State or Federal law’ should not be construed to allow states to override conscience protections by labeling broad abortion mandates as ‘emergency service’ requirements.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]
• Underlying Bill’s Opponents Said Its Supporters Had Misrepresented Current Law, Saying Existing “Unborn Child” Language Served To Require Hospitals To Provide Emergency Care For Health Threats To Fetus. According to the dissenting views included in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman’s ‘‘unborn child.’’ This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to ‘unborn child’ in the definition of ‘emergency medical condition’ is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an ‘emergency medical condition’ if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to ‘unborn child’ in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]

2011: Jeff Landry Voted To Create A So-Called “Conscience Clause” Law That Allowed Health Care Providers To Refuse To Provide Abortion Services. In May 2011, Jeff Landry voted for a bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “establish[ed] ‘conscience protections’ for health care providers who object to providing abortion services.” The House passed the bill with a vote of 251 to 175. The Senate took no subsequent action. [House Vote 292, 5/4/11; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]

• According to NARAL, Conscience Clauses (Or Refusal Laws) Endanger Women’s Health. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, “When health-care institutions and providers deny women access to information about all their health-care options, they can compromise women’s health. Of course, pregnancy is a welcome development in many women’s lives. But for some others, pregnancy can be dangerous, making access to contraceptives and abortion services imperative. For instance, conditions such as cancer, rheumatic fever, severe diabetes, malnutrition, phlebitis, sickle cell anemia and heart disease, significantly increase the risks associated with pregnancy. Women in rural areas may face serious health risks if the only hospital in their area refuses to provide certain reproductive-health services. One Catholic sole-provider hospital in rural California denied a sterilization to a 34-year-old woman following her ninth pregnancy. Although the woman’s doctor advised her against any subsequent pregnancies, and sterilization would have been safest and easiest immediately following delivery, the hospital refused to permit the procedure.” [NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1/1/13]

Landry Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood

2011: Jeff Landry Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In April 2011, Jeff Landry voted for a resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “bar[red] the use of funds made available in the bill to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The vote was on a concurrent resolution to order the House clerk to make a correction in the enrollment of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011 by inserting the proposed amendment. The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 241 to 185, and it was then sent to the Senate, which rejected it. [House Vote 271, 4/14/11; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 36]

• Resolution Was Voted On In House And Senate As Part Of Budget Deal To Fund The Government Through The End Of Fiscal Year 2011. According to Congressional Quarterly, “A compromise fiscal 2011 spending package is set to be quickly signed into law by the president, after the House passed and then the Senate cleared the carefully-crafted deal Thursday. [. . .] Prior to passage, both chambers considered enrollment corrections resolutions that would have cut abortion and health care spending. Negotiators agreed to vote on the cuts separately as part of the compromise on the fiscal 2011 spending package. The House and Senate must both pass the enrollment resolutions for them to take effect. The House adopted the resolutions, while the Senate rejected them, meaning they will not be part of the final legislation.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/11]
• Supporters Said Similar Defunding Planned Parenthood Captured Public Consensus That Wanted Abortion Legal But Did Not Want Taxpayer Money Going To Fund Them. According to Politico, “The House just approved Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, checking off a hot-button social issue even as it set up a bigger showdown over defunding the health care law. […] Pence said the amendment captures a rough public consensus that they accept legal abortions, but don't want to pay for them. He did get House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to weigh in on his side, declaring, “The time has come to respect the wishes of the majority of Americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions.” [Politico, 2/18/11]
• Opponents Called Similar Defunding Provision An Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder Targeting A Specific Group. According to Politico, “Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler called the amendment a ‘bill of attainder’- saying it was unconstitutional as such because the legislation was targeting a specific group. ‘[An attainder is] a legislative enacted penalty, in this case no funding, directed at an identifiable person or organization to punish them for something. Article I Section 9 says ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto should be passed.’ Fundamental foundation of constitutional law. If Planned Parenthood or anyone else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that’s up to the courts,’ said the New York congressman.” [Politico, 2/18/11]
• Planned Parenthood Uses Federal Funding To Provide Pelvic And Breast Exams. According to Politico, “Planned Parenthood estimates it received a quarter of the $317 million in Title X funds appropriated last year. They use the money for pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling, among other things.” [Politico, 2/18/11]
• Anti-Abortion Democrat Had Previously Spoken Out In Favor Of Planned Parenthood’s Health Care Work With Women. According to Politico, “Anti-abortion Democrat Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts said last night that in spite of his beliefs, he supports the organization. ‘This is about the ability of Planned Parenthood to conduct women’s health care, to offer services that are deeply needed in many communities where no other source of health care is available…. I don’t have many friends in the Planned Parenthood community. They don’t support me. I am pro-life. But I respect the good work that they do,’ he said.” [Politico, 2/18/11]

2011: Jeff Landry Voted To Eliminate Funding For Planned Parenthood In The 2011 Continuing Appropriations Bill. In February 2011, Jeff Landry voted for a bill that would have, cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood. According to Roll Call, “More than a dozen House Republicans confirmed Wednesday that their vote on any long-term continuing resolution could well hinge on whether it includes language to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which offers abortion services. […] Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), declined Wednesday to discuss how leadership is planning to deal with conservative concerns over abortion funding. ‘At this point, our position is [to support] H.R. 1, which includes those provisions,’ Steel said in a statement. ‘We’re still waiting to see a plan to cut spending and help create jobs from the Democrats who run Washington.’” The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 189. The Senate extensively amended the legislation and passed the bill, but it was not taken up again by the House. [House Vote 147, 2/19/11; Roll Call, 3/10/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]

2011: Jeff Landry Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In February 2011, Jeff Landry voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “prohibit[ed] any funds in the bill from being made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The underlying bill combined the Defense Appropriations Act and the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The amendment was approved by the House by a vote of 240 to 185. The House approved the underlying bill and sent it to the Senate, which substituted different legislation into the bill. [House Vote 93, 2/18/11; Congressional Quarterly, 2/18/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 95; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]

• Supporters Said Amendment Captured Public Consensus That Wanted Abortion Legal But Did Not Want Taxpayer Money Going To Fund Them. According to Politico, “Pence said the amendment captures a rough public consensus that they accept legal abortions, but don't want to pay for them. He did get House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to weigh in on his side, declaring, “The time has come to respect the wishes of the majority of Americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions.” [Politico, 2/18/11]
• Opponents Called Amendment An Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder Targeting A Specific Group For Punishment. According to Politico, “Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler called the amendment a ‘bill of attainder’- saying it was unconstitutional as such because the legislation was targeting a specific group. ‘[An attainder is] a legislative enacted penalty, in this case no funding, directed at an identifiable person or organization to punish them for something. Article I Section 9 says ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto should be passed.’ Fundamental foundation of constitutional law. If Planned Parenthood or anyone else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that’s up to the courts,’ said the New York congressman.” [Politico, 2/18/11]
• Planned Parenthood Uses Federal Funding To Provide Pelvic And Breast Exams. According to Politico, “Planned Parenthood estimates it received a quarter of the $317 million in Title X funds appropriated last year. They use the money for pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling, among other things.” [Politico, 2/18/11]
• Anti-Abortion Democrat Spoke Out In Favor Of Planned Parenthood’s Health Care Work With Women. According to Politico, “Anti-abortion Democrat Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts said last night that in spite of his beliefs, he supports the organization. ‘This is about the ability of Planned Parenthood to conduct women’s health care, to offer services that are deeply needed in many communities where no other source of health care is available…. I don’t have many friends in the Planned Parenthood community. They don’t support me. I am pro-life. But I respect the good work that they do,’ he said.” [Politico, 2/18/11]

Landry Opposed Medication Abortion 

WBRZ: “Louisiana Attorney General Warns Pharmacies Against Mailing Abortion Pill.” According to WBRZ, “GOP Attorneys General in 20 states, including Louisiana AG Jeff Landry, warned pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens against mailing abortion pills in their jurisdictions and implied they would take legal action, according to CNBC. ‘We emphasize that it is our responsibility as State Attorneys General to uphold the law and protect the health, safety, and well-being of women and unborn children in our states,’ the attorneys general warned to the nation’s two largest drugstore chains on Wednesday. According to CNBC, the drugstores said in January they are applying to become certified with the Food and Drug Administration to dispense the pill as long as a prescription comes from a healthcare provider. Landry was among 20 other attorneys general that signed the letter to the pharmacies along with other signing states such as Alabama, Texas, Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia.” [WBRZ, 2/2/23] 

Landry Warned Pharmacies Against Mailing Abortion Pills In Their Jurisdictions And Implied They Would Take Legal Action. According to KALB, “Twenty attorneys general in conservative-led states have warned CVS and Walgreens that they could face legal consequences if they sell abortion pills by mail in those states. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry is one of the 20. A letter was sent from Missouri AG Andrew Bailey, co-signed by the other 19, to the companies saying the sale of abortion pills would violate federal law and abortion laws in many states. But Bailey didn’t specify what legal action would be taken. 19 states have imposed restrictions on abortion pills, but there’s a court battle over whether they have the power to do so in defiance of the FDA policy. A physician and a company that makes the pill Mifepristone filed separate lawsuits last month seeking to strike down bans in North Carolina and West Virginia.” [KALB, 2/1/23] 

Landry Supported Trigger Laws Banning Abortion And Celebrated When They Went Into Effect With the Dobbs Decision

2022: Landry Was Sued In His Official Capacity As AG For Abortion Trigger Bans That Were Written To Go Into Effect When Roe v. Wade Was Overturned. According to the case brief, “Plaintiffs Hope Medical Group for Women (‘Hope’), Kathaleen Pittman, and Medical Students for Choice (‘MSFC’) file this lawsuit because Louisiana’s criminal abortion bans, La. R.S. § 40:1061, as amended by Act 545 (the “First Trigger Ban”); La. R.S. § 14:87.7, as enacted by Act 545 (the ‘Second Trigger Ban’); and La. R.S. § 14:87.8, as enacted by Act 545 (the ‘Third Trigger Ban’) (together with the First Trigger Ban and Second Trigger Ban, the ‘Trigger Bans’), are unconstitutional.” [June Medical Services, LLC D/B/A Hope Medical Group for Women, Kathleen Pittman, and Medical Students for Choice, on Behalf of Itself and its Members VERSUS Jeff Landry, In His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, 7/29/22]

• Landry Commented That He Was “Pleased With The Court’s Decision” That Abortion Would Remain Illegal In Louisiana. According to a press release from Landry, “Today, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied June Medical’s supervisory writ in their challenge to the State's pro-life laws. In response to that decision, Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following statement: ‘The Louisiana Supreme Court has denied June Medical’s writ. Abortion remains illegal in Louisiana. I am pleased with the Court’s decision and will continue fighting to end this legal circus.’ [Press Release, Attorney General Jeff Landry, 8/12/22] 

2022: Landry Said “Let Us Rejoice In It And Be Glad” When Roe v. Wade Was Overturned And That He Would “Continue Defending Louisiana’s Pro-Life Laws.” According to a press release from Landry, “This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice in it and be glad. Today, along with millions across Louisiana and America, I rejoice with my departed Mom and the unborn children with her in Heaven! The Supreme Court has finally returned to the Constitution and delegated power back to the people. Our State’s representatives, held accountable by their constituents, should – and now again can – determine abortion policy not the federal government. […] My office and I will do everything in our power to ensure the laws of Louisiana that have been passed to protect the unborn are enforceable, even if we have to go back to court. As the chief legal officer for our State, I will continue defending Louisiana’s pro-life laws and working to ensure the health and safety of women and their babies.” [Press Release, Attorney General Jeff Landry, 6/24/2022] 

Landry Tried To Withhold Emergency Flood Funding From New Orleans Because Of City Officials' Opposition To Abortion Ban

Landry Pushed For Approval Of NOLA Flood Funds To Be Stalled As Leverage In Fight Over Abortion. According to Politico, “A Louisiana commission is withholding approval of New Orleans flood control funds over city officials’ opposition to the state’s strict abortion ban.The Louisiana State Bond Commission has twice voted to delay approval of a future $39 million line of credit for a power station to run New Orleans drainage pumps that would protect the city’s 384,000 residents from flooding and have been described as critical for the city’s ability to adapt to climate change. Both votes, each taken at times when New Orleans was under an active flood advisory, have been at the urging of Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry, who is enraged by city officials’ response to the near-total abortion ban. ‘This is them coming right out to the rest of the citizens of the state saying, ‘We don’t care what your law is,’’ Landry said at yesterday’s commission meeting. […] While New Orleans police officers have been directed to investigate alleged abortions and write reports about them, officers have also been instructed not to issue summons or make arrests. Landry called such moves a ‘dereliction of duty,’ with the potential 2023 gubernatorial candidate telling the commission it should ‘use the tools at our disposal to bring them to heel, quite frankly.’” [Politico, 8/19/22]