Life Advocacy Briefing

November 5, 2012

Have We Done What’s Needed? / Take That! / Unsavory Connection?
Nurse Union Weighs In Against Abetted Suicide / ‘I Am Not a Mistake’
Quoteworthy: Overlooked Factor / Thinking It Through

Have We Done What’s Needed?

II CHRONICLES 7:14: “If My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”  


Take That!

ANOTHER PRIVATE BUSINESS HAS WON A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION against the ObamaCare mandate that the Catholic owner and his company furnish free contraceptives, including abortifacients, in employee group insurance plans.

Federal Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan issued the order blocking mandate enforcement, reports John Jalsevac, managing editor of, “on behalf of Weingartz Supply Co. and owner Daniel Weingartz, who had complained that the requirement that they offer birth control, abortifacient drugs and sterilizations free of charge to their employees violated religious freedoms.

“Judge Cleland emphasized that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’ He concluded,” writes Mr. Jalsevac, “‘The harm In delaying the implementation of a statute that may later be deemed constitutional must yield to the risk presented here of substantially infringing the sincere exercise of religious beliefs. The balance of harms tips strongly in Plaintiffs’ favor,’” he wrote. “‘A preliminary injunction is warranted.’”

Joining Weingartz Supply as a plaintiff was Legatus, identified by Mr. Jalsevac as “the nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business owners and CEOs.” The judge did not include Legatus in the injunction because, notes Mr. Jalsevac, he said “that he is not persuaded that Legatus has standing at this time. … However, the judge noted,” reports LifeSiteNews, “that if it turns out the government does apply the mandate to Legatus, the organization can again file a complaint with the court.”

Both Health & Human Services Secy. Kathleen Sebelius and Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis were named as defendants.


Unsavory Connection?

DISTURBING NEWS SURFACED LAST WEDNESDAY concerning Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, America’s chief law enforcement officer, who has given high priority to prosecutions of pro-life protesters under the federal FACE Act, which aborta-philic politicians enacted to put invisible shields around abortuaries.

Mr. Holder’s wife Sharon, an obstetrician, and her sister Margie Malone Tuckson are renting facilities to abortionist Tyrone Cecil Malloy, indicted for massive Medicaid fraud last December by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, reports Ben Johnson for  The Holder-Tuckson property being rented by Mr. Malloy is in College Park, Georgia.

The indictment is not Mr. Malloy’s only brush with the authorities. “In January, 2009, the State Board of Medical Examiners reprimanded [Mr.] Malloy,” reports Mr. Johnson, “for his role in the death [of a customer] but [typically] allowed him to continue practicing.”

The deceased 23-year-old reportedly had suffered a heart attack, according to Mr. Johnson, “and emergency-room surgeons found she had suffered a punctured uterus. She died shortly thereafter.” The young woman had reportedly carried her unborn child for 25 weeks before meeting Mr. Malloy’s instruments of death.


Nurse Union Weighs In Against Abetted Suicide

JUST DAYS BEFORE MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS FACE A REFERENDUM seeking to legalize abetted suicide, the American Nurses Assn. (ANA), reports Johanna Dasteel for, “released a draft position statement that explains its ‘strong’ opposition to nurses’ participation in active euthanasia and assisted suicide.”

Though the normally liberal-leaning interest group’s position is a welcome one, “a leading anti-euthanasia campaigner has expressed concern,” reports Ms. Dasteel, “about what he says is ambiguous language in the document on the withdrawal and withholding of nutrition and hydration. …

“Alex Schadenburg with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told that he is ‘concerned that they have taken a position that food and fluids are extraordinary treatment. … There must be a distinct differentiation made,’” he said, quoted by Ms. Dasteel, “‘between withdrawing hydration and nutrition from a person who is nearing death and withdrawing hydration and nutrition who is not otherwise dying,’ he said.

“‘When hydration and nutrition is withdrawn from a person who is nearing death, especially when the body is shutting down, then it leads to a natural death,’ [Mr.] Schadenberg explained” in the LifeSiteNews story. “‘In fact, as a person nears death, it sometimes becomes necessary to withdraw fluids and nutrition because the body has become unable to assimilate [them].’ In contrast,” he said in story, “‘When hydration and nutrition is withdrawn from a person who is not otherwise dying, for instance a person with a head injury, then the cause of death is intentional dehydration.’”

We encourage ANA members and non-member nurses to weigh in on the language and to insist that any ambiguity be resolved before the “public comment” deadline Nov. 30. Still, we thank the ANA for releasing the draft opposing abetted suicide before Massachusetts voters go to the polls.


‘I Am Not a Mistake’

JUST AS WE BEGAN WONDERING how deeply hurtful the abortion lobby’s politically motivated trashing of people conceived in rape must be to such Americans, we have come across a report indicating that five such women “have stepped forward to defend” Indiana GOP Senate nominee Richard Mourdock, whose statement opposing rape/incest loopholes in future hoped-for abortion bans has been twisted and misreported by his political opponents and the aborta-philic media.

The five women appear in a video in which they “share their stories,” writes managing editor John Jalsevac, of having been conceived in rape “and how grateful they are that they were not aborted.”

The video is not only – hopefully – a rescue of the maligned Mr. Mourdock but also a powerful message to a society calloused by politicians for whom abortion advocacy is a reflex and justice and mercy – or even rational thought – are unfamiliar concepts.

We urge our readers to invest five-plus minutes in viewing this effective message from five courageous women whose silence the abortion industry would dearly love to have secured before their births. Find it on the Internet here. We are hoping also to feature it at  


Quoteworthy: Overlooked Factor

Americans United for Life CEO Charmaine Yoest PhD, in a Nov. 1, 2012, electronic-mail bulletin from AUL: “The future of the Supreme Court is one of the most important voting issues for pro-life Americans, since one of any President’s lasting legacies is the choice of Supreme Court justices – individuals who shape national laws and policies for decades to come.”


Thinking It Through

Commentary by R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

The controversy over comments made by US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock reveals the undeniable ugliness of American politics. At the same time, the media firestorm underscores the importance of getting the pro-life position right – and expressing it well.

Mourdock, the Republican nominee for the US Senate in Indiana, was debating his opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly, when the issue of abortion emerged. Both candidates claimed to affirm that life begins at conception, but Mourdock called for the end of abortion on demand. He then extended his remarks with these words: “This is that issue that every candidate for federal – or even state – office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Immediately, Mourdock was charged with claiming that God intended a rape to happen. … Democratic operatives and media voices denounced Mourdock as hateful, extremist and worse, and even many of his fellow Republicans scattered and ran for cover. …

A closer look at Mourdock’s comments reveals that the candidate was not in any true sense calling rape “something that God intended to happen.” Everything Mourdock said in that answer flowed from his stated presupposition that life begins at conception, and that every human being is a gift from God.

Nevertheless, the liberal media went into full apoplexy, painting Richard Mourdock as a woman-hating extremist with reprehensible views on an issue as serious as rape.

Almost none of those who quoted Mourdock in making these charges used the full quotation… . The full quote reveals that the candidate was affirming the full dignity of every human life, regardless of the circumstances of conception.

[Here Mr. Mohler acknowledges journalists Amy Sullivan in The New Republic and Kevin Drum in Mother Jones, critical of Mr. Mourdock but accurately representing the meaning of his statement.]

The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock’s words amount to nothing less than lies.

At the same time, Mr. Mourdock is responsible for giving the media and his political enemies the very ammunition for their distortions. The debate question did not force Mourdock to garble his argument. The cause of defending the unborn is harmed when the argument for that defense is expressed badly and recklessly, and Mourdock’s answer was both reckless and catastrophically incomplete.

The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life’s conception. No one would deny that this is true of a six-year-old child conceived in the horror of rape; those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.

No doubt, Mourdock meant to express this point, but his words fell far short of an adequate expression of the argument. In his political situation, that failure might be fatal. In terms of the cause of defending life, his argument makes the task more difficult.

And yet, this controversy was not really about a failure of communication. Behind it all is the great chasm that separates those who defend the sanctity of life and those who defend abortion on demand. With that in mind, how should the defenders of life think about exceptions that might justify an abortion?

One truth must be transparently clear: A consistent defense of all human life means that there is no acceptable exception that would allow an intentional abortion. If every life is sacred, there is no exception.

The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. … What should we think of these?

First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.

Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context.

How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains. …

We must argue for the dignity, humanity and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully. The use and deliberate abuse of Richard Mourdock’s comments should underline the risk of falling short in that task.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Mr. Mohler is right to counsel forethought and clear expression while standing tall. We do not, however, criticize Mr. Mourdock for failing to plan more carefully his defense of his noble no-loopholes position.

To begin with, Mr. Mourdock is the State Treasurer of Indiana; his political experience and, no doubt, much of his motivation for seeking office revolve around fiscal issues. Beyond that, we have long observed that pro-life political candidates are left intentionally unprepared by advisers and strategists when it comes to the question of advocating a pro-life view; they are uniformly counseled to “avoid the issue” if possible and minimalize it if it does arise.

Clearly Mr. Mourdock – and Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, famously, before him – preferred to offer a more extensive explication of his views, and just as clearly, no one had encouraged him to talk out his message before being faced with a debate question, in Mr. Mourdock’s case, or an interview, in Mr. Akin’s. Our publisher, Life Advocacy Resource Project, exists to bring strategic forethought into the cause of reforming America’s abortion laws.

We see these stumbles as encouraging, in that these gentlemen have offered sincere defenses of the no-loopholes position. But with Mr. Mohler, we hope these missteps will help future pro-life communicators to plan and think through the “sound” and implications of their rhetoric.

If both these candidates do secure the posts they seek – despite their stumbles – other candidates may be encouraged that loophole advocacy is not politically necessary. With Mr. Mohler, we hope these two men and future candidates will be not only bold but strategic in advocating for Life.

We take note once again of Rep. Paul Ryan’s complete, considered response to a debate question on the topic. His anticipating the question and “thinking ahead” about how most persuasively to advocate for Life produced what we have called a “model pro-life speech” before a wide national audience. Find the transcription in our Life Advocacy Briefing of Oct. 22 and at]